noahbody

And maybe Harper isn't scheming at all. It might be unpopular with his party, but he said he doesn't want and election and you can pretty much count on his word.

When Williams talks about the promise made, is he referring to what Harper said he would do previous to Martin's deal with Williams? If so, sorry Danny, it was pie or ice cream, not both.

Good answer. I like that....to an extent. But on the flip side, if the Americans have a sense of Identity, why is it assumed we do not have one? Now a trickier question....we can compromise, but to what extent? Countries like companies have an image and identity. The identity is how they want to be perceived. The image is how they are perceived. Canada has trouble defining there identity for a numer of reasons including history, geography, its distinct groups and cultures and because it's next door to the USA who likely have the strongest brands as countries go. The States, not only were united from the beginning but they've reinforced this in many ways including their anthem, pledge of allegience, god bless america and American Dream. Call it good marketing material. It's also reinforced by their government. Most importanty their identity has been embraced by their people. Canada tries to look for the lowest common denominator among its people in defining its identity. Not the best approach from a marketing perspective, unless you only want to be known for hockey and beer. As far as to the exent of our ability to compromise, it's better to define yourself than have others define you. It's the difference between being known as accepting or being known as weak.

So you think we should tell the queen to go somewhere when we want her to go somewhere? Will Canada be the only one to have this special relationship or will Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda etc etc....get to plan her day too? I'm saying it's outside the GG's role to go in the first place. good travel agent. I'm saying you are wrong. Yes, but you don't know what you're talking about. really....who give the accreditation to ambassadors? Who accepts the credential of ambassadors to Canada....Or more to the point, who is the head of state? Now explain why the GG shouldn't be allowed to represent the Queen outside of Canada while representing Canada? It's a waste of tax dollars. If the govt wants to send her on ocassion in place of someone in foreign affairs to represent the country that's fine. But her trip should be arranged by foreign affairs. Clarkson's staff and budget increases to the GG office to accommodate an expanded role/vacation were unnecessary and ridiculous. They should be cut back to the days of Leblanc, as should the role of the GG.

So you think we should tell the queen to go somewhere when we want her to go somewhere? Will Canada be the only one to have this special relationship or will Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda etc etc....get to plan her day too? I'm saying it's outside the GG's role to go in the first place. good travel agent. I'm saying you are wrong. Yes, but you don't know what you're talking about.

So you think we should tell the queen to go somewhere when we want her to go somewhere? Will Canada be the only one to have this special relationship or will Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda etc etc....get to plan her day too? I'm saying it's outside the GG's role to go in the first place. It would make sense to be represented by our foreign affairs or ambassador if available. Give her a staff of 20 and a good travel agent.

I find what not reasonable is the size of her staff and her budget. If I recall, Clarkson added 80-100 staff to the office to make it approximately 300. What a waste of money. In my opinion, the GG has no reason to travel outside of Canada. The Queen's representative outside of Canada is the Queen.

I would suggest Canada can best be defined as a nation of compromise. We were formed on compromise. Our acceptance of compromise is what has made us multicultural and influences how we approach daily issues. This is what distinguishes us from the States, for better or worse. The States were formed though the 13 colonies being united to win. Compromise threatens their identity so they are not as open to it.

Would anyone here not have kicked Turner out of the party? The guy's a complete boob.

Wouldn't anyone here not have kicked Turner out of the party? The guy's a complete boob.

Documentary summary: Increasing temperature increases CO2. Scientists point out he graphs Gore in his Inconvenient Truth show indicate an 800 year lag between temperature incease and the corresponding CO2 increase. Dumbed down: If the egg came first, blaming the chicken is misdirected. The lag is true, it is definitely an inconvenient truth for the climate change industry. But to find the truth, scientists need to defend their theory against this claim.

Both Martin and Chretien voted against it. Martin justified his later yes vote as voting for the charter.

Yes it did. But guess what. here's the full story. We can go through each point in the movie and it will shredded to pieces. I guarantee. This isn't California Court doubt doesn't apply here. This is science. I'm not sure what the gun registry has to do with this debate, but I can see why you find this video so compelling it too is filled with erroneaus references that have no place in the story. And BTW 100% YES The reputation of the scientist is important in this case because many of the 'scientists' in this video have not produced a peer reviewed paper on Global warming. We have nothing else to go on! You asked for it. http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf When I asked if it was true or false I was asking if the statement made was factual, not if someone made the claim. The lag statement is either accurate or not. It's black or white. The reputable scientists you speak of should address this challenge and defend their theory. That's science. It's easier to look for answers than it is to find truth.

The debate now shouldn't be on reputations of scientists, it should be on the statemtent about the CO2 lag. Is it true or false? If true, we're about the spend billions on a global gun registry.

Don't think there's much debate the the globe is getting warmer.

There is a reason why this film concentrates on the social/political motives of the alarmists. The evidence presented is compelling - especially the 800 year lag in CO2 and the hand-in-glove relationship of sunspot activity to the planet's natural warming and cooling cycles. Once you accept that either the alarmists are wrong or at the very least, there is a rational and realistic line of debate opposing a significant mad-made contribution to Climate Change....then you have to ask the question - why would there be such a massive mis-representation of facts? And for that answer, as the video portrays, you have to go back to the beginning. That's why the film is as long as it is. Notwithstanding the accuracy of any side of this issue, the truly shameful and in many respects, heinous act, is the attempt to "shut down" an opposing Scientific point of view. This is an affront to Science itself which can only move forward by being able to poke and prod every assumption, theory and conclusion. Demonizing researchers and scientists as "denyers" and "sceptics" takes us back to the days of the Inquisition, Salem witch-hunts and Nazi Germany's Cristelnacht book-burning. Absolutely disgusting. This is how you end up with a Police State where a government simply imposes it's will on people - so not matter what side of the argument you are on, we should all be very, very concerned. If you haven't watched the entire video with an open mind, take the time (everybody). I somehow doubt that the CBC be be showing it anytime soon. Saw a clip of Gore in front of Congress. He made the analogy that the planet had a fever and when your baby has a fever you take it to the doctor. Then he went on to say when the crib is on fire, you don't wait to see if the baby is fire-retardant. That's pretty compelling stuff.

Alberta and Quebec are made for each other. They both try to play the same game and whine about the other doing it. No sympathy for separatist rhetoric. Alberta drinks from the same koolaid as they serve in Quebec. It is all about what's in it for themselves and screw anybody else who doesn't like it. Actually kind of fun and entertaining when they do it to each other. P.S. I always find it amusing that Albertans and Quebecers constantly talk about how they get shafted by 'the rest of Canada' and how Ottawa is always out to screw them. And of course, that Ottawa government is 'jammed' down their throats. But of course, no one ever mentions that all of the Prime Ministers going back to the 1960's have been from either Alberta or Quebec (exception was Kim Campbell for a day or two). Funny how that works. Better check your facts. Diefenbaker and Pearson (both PMs in the 60s) were born in Ontario. So was Harper. Your statement of Alberta and Quebec playing the same game is silly. Alberta has always willingly paid more than its fair share, like Ontario. The difference between Ontario and Alberta is that Alberta has to stand up for itself as it was severely screwed in the past by the NEP that tanked the economy and cost thousands of jobs. Being from Ontario where the votes are, you'll never have to worry about something like this.

How has he helped the Bloc fight for separation? Last time I checked transfers go to provinces and not a federal party. I think that was a liberal policy that used envelopes. If anything increasing transfers to provinces weakens the separation movement.

Firstly, the $100/month is basically family allowance and it helps. Secondly, the conservative plan to create daycare spaces was to have it primarily funded by corporations; through tax incentives. This saves you and me money. Martin's dream of having equal access to all Canadians was nothing more than an election ploy to attract the stupid. By every Canadian, this would mean universal daycare in every town and city across Canada. How many billions and billions of dollars would this cost? Paid you you the taxpayer. In comparison $100 in the black is pretty good.

Adel, religion and science have the same beginnings: theory. Man has always been capable of creating theory, some will end up being true; some false. You can get dressed each morning according to the forecast of the Farmer's Almanac or you can look out your window.

Only one party in recent years has had a 'hidden agenda.' It was about staying in power at all costs, whether it was politicizing issues such as health care, laundering money or just getting friends rich through the awarding of contracts. They betrayed taxpayers time and time again, yet some are so loyal to their brand, they'll never see it.

Shame he can't say it. Shame no politician says it. Paul Martin said it. Canada gave Paul Martin hundreds of millions of dollars in shipping contracts. I'd hope he say it.

All I am saying here is from the holy book… not faking anything… There we go. You're quoting from "the holy book." Wrong. You're quoting from "a holy book." There are many religions older than Christianity. Why do you think that is? I suppose God was doing the Truman Show thing cause he was bored.

Harper's secret agenda is extremely simple, to get elected *again*. Dion's secret agenda is *much* *much* more worrying. With Harper we know what we'll get, but with Dion, who knows? For example, Dion knows the Kyoto targets are unattainable without major economic hardship. He is either a shameless liar or secretly plans to destroy provinces such as Alberta. Dion is a scary scary man. Maybe the Cons can use "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" in their favour.

If someone's head is up their own ass, God put it there for a reason.