kuzadd

The PM is the PM of ALL of Canada, what part of that don't you comprehend?

weird how alberta asking for a hand-out suddenly becomes about other provinces, hmmm? that's 300 million in tax breaks, that will have to come from other people's pockets

A logical and rational person, does not use capitals to shout in anger, nor use the term "left wing nutjobs", nor exclaim opinions other then their own as "perverse." Or claims others are seeing the world from the inside of their own a$$ infact, they wouldn't resort to profanity either. nope nothing rational or logical there! oh an yes, the PM of Canada played the fear (divide and conquer) card wrt to the Bloc. And Canada as of right this moment includes quebec wether you like it or not. But then given the irrationality your post indicates............

where are provinces complaining? can they do that? are provinces (geographical pieces) capable of that?

yes, there is a terrorist under every bed, boo! do you spy on your neighbours also? the story in the opening post is a discreditted story. denied by the rcmp and csis, which begs to ask, what is the point other then to keep people fearful? wait, that is the point, I just answered my own question.

wow, what an article! "many countries say Canada is a haven for terrorists" many? how many, who when???? "various media outlets in Canada reported that Hezbollah cells in Toronto....." I remember that, one news story, and then nothing but denials, looked to be nothing more then rumour. Dinah Kutner said that “it’s been blown out of proportion. A lot of things being reported are not accurate.” including csis and rcmp The police service, which liaises with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), also had no information about arrests of a Hezbollah cell as was reported in Israel. that news story seemed to originate out of an Israeli tv station, and was apparently speculative. anyone can speculate on anything, some can speculate aloud? Some can get the media to report on speculation? but, one would think whomever wrote this story would have checked into this????

I agree I note that Stephen Harper alienated the east, demonized quebec, his finance minister hasn't given the time of day to Ontario. The fear card, he played over and over, during the recent "crisis", waving the seperatist boogey man was a disgrace for a pm who claims he stands up for Canada. He clearly plays to his western audience, and pits west against east in a very disgraceful manner for a PM of the country, the entire country.

Sir Bandelot: hammer hits nail head, dead on. Exactly the point I was making. Albertans, some not all, heap disdain endlessly on the 'socialists' and the 'liberals' and the rest of Canada who are allegedly all lazy and on welfare, but, there are no qualms in asking for a share of the rest of Canada's tax dollars. IMO the tar sands were always shaky in their feasibility, they always relied on very high gas prices, that were inflationary in nature (cost everyone money) heavy subsidies (cost everyone money) for their very existence.

Alberta to seek tax breaks for oil sands Tax breaks and write offs? Oil prices being so low, make this project unfeasible. (never mind the environmental damage) Alberta asks for a hand out from the FEDS, that means the rest of Canada. The ones that Albertans revile so.

well that's your opinion, but since I chose from the get go to focus on content, that demonstrates I am not looking at the medium for the superficial delivery and presentation, I am looking to the message.

simply check the cbc website, it has been posted there since early am when I rewatched both of them myself.

I tried to stick to the content of the speeches, in other words, what was being presented, put forward, spoke on, talking points etc., Content demonstrates what each leader had to say, what information they wanted presented. Both leaders must have approved of the contents of both of their speeches.

But, I didn't only speak on the Harper speech, can you read? I did see the speech, on "primetime" as you so call it. Perhaps, the channel you were watching failed to show it?

Harper has lost the confidence of that Parliament. Scriblett: Yet, somehow you see the immoral and conniving instigator of this crisis, Stephen Harper, as the one who must run this country. Interesting?

I didn't find it hard to understand. I'll admit he stumbled slightly, but overall, unless one is hard of hearing, or is never exposed to persons who speak other languages, which is rather hard to imagine in Canada...... I didn't have an issue understanding.

ah, actually had you waited.........never mind

I actually found Dion's speech more upbeat, delivered in a more positive manner. Demonstrating inclusion. Demonstrating a plan to include all. The Harper government has lost the confidence of fellow mp, that is true and obvious. Canadians want Parliament to work together, that is true and obvious. Coalitions presented as positive, and done in other countries, stressing cooperation, not conflict. Talking about the economy, including all major city centres across the country, demonstrating inclusiveness. Politician and rivals are working together elsewhere in the world, why not Canada? Downplaying of fear. Overall, the better of the two speeches.

I watched both of the speeches, I'll comment on content. Harper doesn't mention his government has another minority, He calls it a mandate. It was not a decisive one. He mentions the oppositions actions, but not his own. He uses fear mongering-waving the Bloc around. the Bloc:A federal party , elected to parliament, by Canadians. He paints the oppositions as treasonous. He paints the actions as ant-democratic, they are not. And lastly, he portrays himself as the "big daddy" who will take care of everything and kiss all the booboos. Long on irrationality and fear, short on substance.

Who is advocating a stimulus package? I merely stated that the Conservatives have been throwing money around very well. Including that wasted election, that btw went in direct opposition to harpers own promises. (fixed election dates) and one more thing Cry us a river, Tories, but who wrote the book on chaos? Cooperation has not been on the agenda with the tories from the previous minority up to this one. A government who wishes to cooperate doesn't go to such lengths. Just the facts.

god almighty, reading through this thread, and the responses of the Conservative supporters? You would have thought the Conservatives had a majority government handed to them by the voters. Just a reminder, they didn't. Despite your feelings about the Conservatives the simple fact is it was another minority government and the majority of voters didn't support them. editted to add: In fact, what the Conservatives had was a mandate that required them to cooperate with the other parties, that is what the votes decided. The Conservatives forgot that, and decided to play partisan games to their own benefit, instead of governing the country. This is not what they were elected to do. Cooperation was key. therefore, are the other parties not actually doing what Canadian wanted? Cooperating? :end of addition This nonsense about the three parties and their spending? Am I the only one that notes the conservatives have been happily spending? 300 million dollars for the latest, useless election? Just for starters. Am I the only one that notes the conservatives are bailing the banks.? And I hate to break it to you conservative party supporters, they would also have bailed the car companies. Why? If the US government bails the automakers, Canada under any government will follow suit.

oleg while I agree wholeheartedly times are very difficult. I disagree with you on this theory that people have no time to think for themselves. What is the average on television watching? I saw a recent article that happy people watch 19 hours and less, and unhappy people watch 25 hours of television that is WEEKLY. Let's say that on average people watch 22 hours of tv a week, take just 1/4 of that time, 4 1/2 hours to inform oneself, seek alternative information sources, read a dam book, whatever. It is in our own best interests to be informed of the world that we are part of, that we live, work, and engage in. If it is important enough make the dam time, and one of the easiest ways to do so is to shut off the idiot box.

I know you are being humourous gosthacked, but, though I largely take a pass on this forum, anymore. I couldn't resist the words coming out of Rupert Murchochs mouth. No tin foil hat, no conspiracy. He made it quite clear, "editors" were demi-gods, they were deciding what was news and what wasn't. That is as straight out as you can get it, from the horses mouth as they say. Though of course, he didn't include himself in this mess the mainstream media is in (lack of trust) Just reporters and editors, the underlings. He gave himself a great big pass. you are right Sir bandelot, it is not conspiracy, it is just plain and simple fact. Of course some persons on this forum, who actually think the press is "free and unfettered" and even more laughingly accountable, are the conspiracy theorists. Believing in some pie in the sky sort of ideal of the media. Yet, we have all noted the press bias in favour of government,as in regurgitation of everything the government talking heads say ( Iraq wmd's, Iran the speed boat incident, Israel's occupation, what occupation? and on and on) other business, advertisers, and the last thing the msm considered at all were the audience. This is why we read Rupert Murdoch lamenting the losses. Will they change their colours? Not likely. And yes Australia is really censoring the internet, in a big way. Country wide. But that only happens in countries that are not "free" right? lol. oh and gosthacked you are far more generous then I am. "However most of these topics have been and currently are being debated on here at MLW." must be just the very few.

the only reason to do this, would be to fan the flames of separation. Is that what Harper is after? Seems to be, so why? Hmm?

funny to see Murdoch lamenting in this manner, since he played quite a role in readers not trusting the media. Notice he puts the blame on the editors acting as demi-gods, making decisions on what is news and what isn't? Of course Murdoch himself had no role in that , right? Right? lol. What I liked about it though, there was old Rupert acknowledging the mistakes of being the deciders has cost readership. How there is broader and more diverse discussion amongst the blogs, then there is in msm, including his own. poor rupert, I guess he thought more people were contented in the bliss of his bullshit then actually were boohooo.

Sir Bandelot, if it walks like and talks like a bail-out then it is. Call it a hand-up. not a hand-out. That kinda double speak makes those that willingly choose the label of "right" feel better.