kuzadd

Bloomberg news Ditto for Volvo, SAAB. Fiat is in trouble also. So it seems the automakers woes are global, not limited to NA

Gosh I wonder, how many homeless , jobless , hungry people could have benefitted from this? Well I am sure these people needed it to keep the mansions , etc up.... Instead...... executive bonus's for jobs well done, LOL!

I was raised and indoctrinated roman catholic.... and religion has no place in the politics of a nation.

actually August , government and central banks make bubbles, but they do, because it is good for business. Particularly enriching for the wealthy business class and banks!!! (It's self-serving too, on the part of the banks that is) thinking of the profit hey days as of recently and of course the dipping from taxpayers to pay bonus salaries to executives. Tax cuts are good for big business and the very wealthy in particular, and we have done them to death.. and they have got us nowhere! ya know what the defintion of insanity is doncha? Doing the same thing over and over and actually expecting different results. That is what you are proposing, the same thing, that didn't work. Ya know, I follow this think tank out of Europe, very interesting stuff, anyway, they feel we as a society are desperate for new thinking and new ideas. and we will need it to get out of this very big, very deep ,very systemic financial crisis. That means old thinking , out the window, and your ideas my friend, are just more of the same old same old, that have got us right where we are at now.

You self-ascribed conservative types always give me a gut busting laugh. I will say that. You scream for YOUR rights, under YOUR religion. To hell with anyone else. But YOU rail against religious rights and practices of others. (Especially Muslims/Islam) In this country, and their own! Yet like any good religious extremists, your all cut from the same dam rotten cloth! Control, control, control. Pot meet kettle.... do the double standards know , no bounds? Allelujiah, the lord is gonna smite ya.............. Sinners abound.

It is also interesting to note these most recent developments wrt Afghanistan. The mission that is about oilpipelines.... As has already been pointed out ad naseum the pipeline is set to begin consruction in 2010 Richard Boucher, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, said last year: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." check back for links to stories..... anyway- most recently U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates that Ottawa should reconsider its end date for the Afghanistan mission, stay: just a little bit longer, please, if you only stay till Dec 2011, the pipeline will certainly not be done, we need you. of course the Harper gov, fell all over themselves when that was reported to say, oh there has been no change in the date etc etc but then yesterday it was reported, there was a change.. from no change in date of withdrawal, to dodging the question put to him, such a simple question PM Harper dodges the question completely Imagine my non-suprise, of course PM Harper wouldn't answer that question. He couldn't, because he couldn't simply say NO, not on my watch! Not as long as I am PM! Because if he is PM at the time of the supposed withdrawal he will extend the mission and so will the Liberals if they are in power. And it is all about the construction of that pipeline....................

moderate american: it is not possible to buy oil from Afghanistan, their a conduit not a supplier. there a means to an end. I should have specified doing business, as in conducting trade. though I did to some degree. you should read some of the info already posted. the oil in the pipeline (TAPI) is turkmenistan's oil. Defense pacts, Loyalty to Nato and the UN, Because it was percieved to be the right thing to do by your elected leaders oh, yes the all convenient NATO and the UN... lol. well you can use them for a excuse, certainly they are a means to an end, but, the Canadian troops are still their securing oil resources that Canada is in no need of. Why? not necessarily attacks could come from the North..., not through the south and the troops would be in Afghanistan. and btw how many troops does the US really have to spare? unless a draft is instituted?

Reality check wrt the "miracle" of the Irish economy. The Irish economy is in shamrocks, er sorry shambles. Kiss the blarney stone, but the Irish eyes ain't smilin no more. Cowen unveils plan amid 120,000 job loss forecast No indication of turnaround in Irish economy Experts warn downturn will only get worse in 2009 Think tank issues gloomiest outlook yet for Irish economy just a sampling.....

boy oh boy, we have done tax cuts for years and years now, and wow, look where it got us. Especially corporate tax cuts, and hell they went to 3rd world countries. How is that for a kick in the teeth?! But hey give more, and then after that, give your first born and hell every last drop of blood in your body, see what that will get ya!

actually, it is those with the least dollars that will be hardest hit by the "healing restrictions" put in place. To be fair, BC’s carbon tax needs work I highly doubt that low income families have "more then they need"

I have some serious doubts wrt the entire "global warming" scenario, and wonder about the role of the sun's most recent activities in this issue.

Despite the utter nonsense of the war was started in Afghanistan because of 9/11... It is really not relevant. The US and it's allies in no shape or form needed to invade and occupy the entire country of Afghanistan for one criminal. To follow this logic, then any country can invade and occupy another to catch some one who is most wanted. OH wait, sorry OBL is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks, as per the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm So hang on, if the US doesn't have enough evidence to arrest OBL for 9/11, and he is not "wanted" for 9/11, they why did they (US and allies) invade and ever since occupy another country allegedly for OBL. Clearly following common sense thinking OBL was not the real reason for the invasion and occupation. Making 9/11 a non-starter regarding the attack and occupation of Afghanistan. Just the simple facts.......

actually rue, I don't lecture, I post. I leave the lecturing to you example: ' you don't see how your own actions are causing what you criticize " which means nothing.... "you have made no indication in any of your threads you are willing to adjust your lifestyle. " my lifestyle is my business, you don't know me, or how I live... therfore you can't speak of my lifestyle with any relevance to this subject, and I do not speak of yours. as for canadian soldiers: I expressed no stereotypes of them. and this is why I don't pay particular attention to what you wrote, it is a bunch of assertations based on assumptions and nothing more. It couldn't possibly be anything else for some of the reasons above. When I said the soldiers were there for pipeline construction, I backed it up, and I beleive bc chick, provided more info in regards to that. All your aspersions about me and my lifestyle and this and that are irrelevant nonsense...... Interesting you note this... colonialist thinking? advocation of control or domination of one group, benefitting the dominating group, not benefitting the subordinate group. Question 1 Why rue, can't oil simply be bought? As in paid for with money from a buyer to a seller? I wonder why it is you see the need for war as an option to attain oil. When it could just be purchased. Canada has oil, and we sell it, and we are not militarily invaded and under occupation forces. Question 2" Rue, Canada has it's own oil, therefore the question that begs asking is why are the Canadian forces in Afghanistan occupying a foreign nation to secure oil resources when WE have our own oil. Question 3: Rue, shouldn't Canadian troops be ensuring the security of Canada's oil for your all comsuming "lifestyle" concerns? I look forward to explicit replies for those 3 questions, and not long winded lectures please.... just answer the dam questions......

Yes, the pipeline is "just happening". It is like a virgin birth, all spontaneous and holy. Yikes!

Washington has long promoted a gas pipeline south from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India. It would pass through Kandahar. Realistic or not, construction is planned to start in 2010, and Canadian Forces are committed until December 2011. Richard Boucher, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, said last year: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." TAPI gas pipeline project to begin in 2010 tapi, that is turkmenistan, afghanistan, pakistan,india ISLAMABAD, April 24 (Xinhua) -- Oil ministers from Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (TAPI) signed a draft framework on Thursday, agreeing to start construction work of the TAPI gas pipeline project in 2010. The project cost has risen to 7.6 billion U.S. dollars from originally estimated 3.3 billion dollars in 2004, the official Associated Press of Pakistan (APP) said http://rss.xinhuanet.com/newsc/english/200...ent_8044568.htm Afghanistan and three of its neighbouring countries have agreed to build a $7.6-billion (U.S.) pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to energy-starved Pakistan and India - a project running right through the volatile Kandahar province - raising questions about what role Canadian Forces may play in defending the project. I see signs of a pipeline, in the works since at least 2002...

Interesting to view while in process, a thread hijacking. Sleight of hand. Don't look at the bad being done by the west, as per opening post and video clip. Quick look over here, at what "they" do. See they are bad, and "we" are the do-gooders. Fabulous, what is this called when this is done for purposes of misleading? It is clearly propogandistic in nature, displays a delusionary perception of reality. One in which the person dissipating it feels they must lie to others and themselves to be ok with the crimes perpetuated on behalf of an action that they are in agreement with. But really, maybe another thread is in order, or at least enough courtesy to discuss the op and the film clip that accompanies it?

The comparisons to "others"? How about "them" aren't they bad too? We aren't any worse then "them" I see the invaders apologist line is out in full force. Apparently the truth hurts, but it still doesn't change the facts. The invading forces are killing innocent civilians. For Pipelines.

It is NOT about what I "believe", it is about the FACT that it is a happening.

Rue: I skimmed through what you wrote, which boils down to..... the west went there to do good, like the "do gooders' we like to think we are. freedom, woman's rights, were not quitters, we get the job done, rah rah... and of course a number of rude assumptions.. par for the course with yourself. I don't quite know where you got off on this rant of being critical of soldiers but, whatever floats your boat. I'll quote Eric Margolis here or this the soldiers are committed to a pipeline.... this is not a do gooder mission in any way shape or form. invasion and occupation were not necessary, unless the goal was domination and control. Which it was. (and you at least acknowledge) I guess it is a coincidence the canadia soldiers are in Kandahar, on the pipelines route? Rebuilding for the pipeline I guess, but not for the people. Which makes a do-gooder ideal nonsense.

video at link, for you viewing 'pleasure' Afghanistan, the war will not be won, Canada is wasting taxpayer dollars and participating in the death of innocents.

Well PM Harpers comment have not gone unnoticed: PM's pessimistic talk makes bad situation worse, critics say I don't know, can his talk really make the situation worse? Maybe as far as confidence in leadership, and ability. meh. what I find interesting is this part the PM's evolving talk election talk, don't worry be happy Canadians. Anyone with half a brain KNEW at this time, we were in a recession, as the US has been since Dec 07 (as they recently officially stated) but come on PM Harper and other in the government should have known this anyway.... there is no reason to think they did not.

What makes this so interesting is in the recent election , Stephen Harper was on message, the economy is fine , the banks are fine, it's all good. He didn't even mention recession. Now he is conceding depression. How dumb did he think Canadians were?

hah, I was wondering when someone was going to read the entire article. And as I scroll through, someone finally did. The author compares Ignatieff and Harper cut from the same cloth. quite frankly, I am in complete agreement. difference being, Ignatieff, will be able to talk, he will dazzle Canadians with bullshit, in a much kinder and gentler way then Steven Harper , who is clearly incapable. He is the Obama to the Bush. But Ignatieff, like Harper is no friend to Canada. (both supported the Iraq war, both are too cozy with US interests) Anyone but Liberals and Conservatives

When asked whether a depression might be possible, Harper answered: "It could be, but I think we've learned enough about depression; that means , to those who can read, Harper concedes, or acknowledges a depression is possible, but, blah, blah blah.... meaningless words to soothe.

On a "glitch" coincidence? Canada's leader says depression possible