ScottSA

So you think the U.S. system is the best model? Or something more drastic like government getting out of healthcare altogether? I don't know that companies are interested in the any healthcare model except ones that also limits choice like the HMO. Why are you using this either/or dichotomy? Are there no options aside from EvIl AmRicAn healthcare or the status quo in canada?

But what is it about that letter that you find offensive? He was speaking on behalf of Alberta when he wrote that. Wouldn't you want him to speak as strongly on behalf of Canada now that he's PM?

Well, there was this guy named Alexander, and his dad Phillip the Macedonian... Exactly how far to the east did his empire stretch? Oh yeah, India. Real passive, that guy. He attacked persia for the same reason Rome attacked Carthage. Read some history.

It's impossible for some people to get their heads around the idea that other people don't share their paradigms. To you, the desire for "peace" is self-evident. It's unthinklable to you, as evidenced by your attitude toward Virtu and male aggression, that others hold some things higher than peace. Islam, and in particular Wahobbism holds MOST things higher than peace. Talk of "peace" has a certain amount of currency for UN talkshops and CAIR/CAIR-Can agitprop, but outside of that radical Islam has very little utility for peace. It's the same for the appeaser faction prior to WW II. They assumed, from Chamberlain to Baldwin, that Hitler really wanted peace, and that if they redressed the alleged problems issuing from Versailles, that he would join the "community of nations" and be a productive member. So while they dreamed of disarmament treaties and angled for friendship with Hitler, Hitler rearmed with abandon. But what the appeaser faction didn't understand, and some of them never did understand, even after the war, is that Hitler wasn't "insane", or so devilish that he just lied for the sake of it, but that he lived in an entirely different paradigm; a paradigm where peace was at best incidental and at worst counterproductive to the aryan superman ideal he sought, built by hardship and struggle. Hitler WANTED war; if not with the west, at least with the east. His highest point of consideration was not the "peace" of Chamberlain, it was leibenstrau for the German volk. He built his armed forces for the expressed intention of attacking Russia; he outlined that as early as the 1920s. But, like your view of Islam, no one believed Hitler even though he told them what he was going to do. It just didn't fit with their world view, so they threw it out and went searching for other reasons which fit their way of thinking. Like you and the left in a constant search for reasons that make sense to you for the attack by Islam..."imperialism, poverty, ignorance" and so on...notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden and everyone else on the side of Islam has been looking you in the eye for 5 or 6 years, telling you precisely why they want to kill you. What you consider "freedom", they consider decadence. What you consider "rights", like gay marriage and equal opportunity for women, they consider abhorrent and against the law of God. And they don't want peace, because peace amounts to the status quo. They want war, because only through war can they bring back the Caliphate. And ironically, the folks who think like you are the very first ones they'll line up against the wall. They don't want "compromise"; how can mere humans compromise with the willl of God? God doesn't compromise, because he's right. They are not living in the same philosophical world as you are. Trying to understand radical Islam by applying your reason to it won't work. It's not Bush, or Israel or imperialism or Haliburton or poverty or ignorance. It's Islam.

There are other dynamics at work here too. First is the graying of the population and its concurrent rightward swing. As the pig moves through the python and as folks start to look around and look at themselves and their situation, the appeal for "change" loses its attraction. "Change" is a young person's mantra, and it worked as a political mantra too throughout the 80s and 90s, but folks have finally realized that while 'change' can mean a change for the better, at least as often it means a change from the frying pan into the fire. Leftism isn't trendy anymore, although it'll take the self-considered elites a while to twig to the fact, as always. The demographics of immigration is another factor. It used to hold true that immigrants traditionally voted for the Liberals, but that has been changing over the years as well. Especially among those immigrant groups which have made a success of their lives in Canada; most notably the Chinese and Hindu/Sikh segments of the population. To them, conservative policies are more appealing than the cradle to grave politics of liberalism. I can't cite the specific studies of immigrant voting behaviour, but I have read them, and this is one of the noticeable trends over the past decade. Mark Steyn and others have brought to national attention the demographics of politics as well. Simply put, social conservatives reproduce faster than social "progressives". That's no particular surprise to anyone with experience in a traditional family background, and for anyone who has been to a rightwing policy convention. The former is self explanitory, and the latter is because ringwing women are sooooo much hotter than leftwing women. That means many more people are being raised in a conservative environment, and while it's cool to dis dad in 1st and 2nd year university, most people grow up and revert to formative beliefs eventually. Finally, the big one: economy. Try as they might, the Libs and NDP can't make the economy tank by tomorrow. The beginnings of a recession are here, but no one will notice for a year or so...right now things look pretty good, and the Cons would be remiss if they didn't play the same game the Libs have for years and take credit for it.

What do you find offensive about the so-called firewall letter?

You don't have a category for "will pay friggin' taxes through the nose"

That may be true as a snapshot measurement, but it holds true for about 5 minutes beyond that. They can landslide in every direction or in one direction with ease at the slightest change in the political environment. It's essentially useless to speculate future results based on polls today. Sometimes the breakdown maintains; sometimes we see it slip sideways to land in a heap where it's least expected. I don't know how many folks remember "KIM!" from 1993, at something like 45% prior to the election, and about 10% by the end of it.

Excellent speech...on it's own terms, not because it's some bankerplot.

myata, do you see any difference at all between and intentional attack on innocents (say a suicide bomber in a crowded marketplace) and a military attack on an active rocket launcher hidden in a house full of civilians? I'm not looking for a long apologia, just a yes or no. Are they morally equivalent in your opinion or not?

It is often denied nonetheless. Unfortunately it's a growing part of Islam, and it's growing fastest in the west. Particularly Europe; parts of which are teetering on the edge of civil war because of it. Which part? Here's some remedial readuing. Fjordman is a well known writer on the topic. His english is a bit stinted, being an academic and a European an' all, but he's on top of it: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/03/...nst-swedes.html http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/05/...rk-side-of.html

Please...explain. Go ahead. Make my day. No evidence of blasting caps or fuse cable in the building before collapse or in the debris. The buildings didn't fall into their own footprints. Destruction was from the top down, the so called "squibs" were debris and smoke being pushed out by the compression of the weight falling on the building from above. Real explosions peak early and then die out quickly - these grew in strength as the building fell. Not to mention the fact that building demolitions involve explosives only on the lower floors, but hey, who's counting when it involves the TRVTH? Besides, the illuminati came along afterwards and picked up all the blasting caps, but there weren't any anyway because it was topsecret CIA blastingcapless explosives used.

What about the reptilian aliens/British monarchy drug lords? Nevermind the jokes. It's the Bushitlerburtonbeelzebub faction of the Black Hand who controls CNN, but it's supposed to be a secret, so don't tell anyone. They're the ones who fired the USS Cole into the Pentagon and tried to foist it off on us as an airplane attack by swarthy folk from the middle east. iTS aLl leiS!11111@!1!!!!

How does someone like woody reconcile the urge to post with the certain knowledge that people will laugh at him once he does?

What? The eastern seaboard of Canada isn't happy with the budget? That's a new one...

I could care less about the winner. I focussed on your comment that Quebec seemed to be moving to small government. I saw nothing of that in the campaign. No need to get angry about it. I have no idea what 30% or 50% you're talking about. Any reference to it or citation? He's refering to the last referendum for the 50% statistic, and using the 30% who voted for the PQ this time. I think the 50% is fairly safe to use, because it was, after all on the question of seperation. But I suspect that all 30% who voted PQ this time didn't do so solely because they wanted seperation, and all 30% who voted ADQ didn't do so because they rejected seperation. So I'm not sure 30% is a reliable figure. It's probably higher, but fairly soft outside the core seperatist vote.

That's the tradition, and at least it's better than radical Frenchwomen reporters from Haiti.

Wasn't CNN the same news organisation who reported on the WMD in Iraq?! Yeah, CNN is in on a big plot! ErEyoVne is lINYg!!!!!!! Run aaWy fsAT!1!!11! If CNN says they were in Iraqi waters, just imagine where Fox will say they were...Norfolk, probably. I'm startled at the degree of cynicism and self hatred there is in the west. I'm surprised the left doesn't just charge toward the nearest cliff en masse to just get it all over with. What an absolutely stupid response. The point I am making is that CNN HAS lied before - so how do you know that they aren't lying again? What a stupid claim. CNN reports the news, they don't make it up.

Of course the GG is the queen's representative here and abroad. She has every right to travel amount wasting bucketloads of money on ridiculous expeditions; that's all that's left of the carcass of the GGs job description. People are more pissed off about who she is than what she does. Me for instance. If we're going to maintain offices that are largely ceremonial, and I have nothing in particular against that, then we ought not make a farce out of it by making damned good and sure the GG is first, an immigrant; second, an immigrant from a former French colony; and third, a former Quebec soveriegnist. And what's with the proclivity towards banal CBC reporters?

I suppose fear can be irrational if there is no danger. But when there is a demonstrated danger, not being fearful is itself irrational, wouldn't you say? It's all very nice to pretend there's no danger, but I'll hazard a guess that you'll be in the forefront of the shrieking hysterical gaggle of commentators demanding to know why they weren't protected after the next attack hits. Is there a demonstrated danger?? What is a "demonstrated danger"? I'll allow you the time to cogitate and perhaps rethink that question. Use the time well...asking questions and then realizing they are unintended rhetorical questions is embarrassing at the best of times.

It is often denied nonetheless. Unfortunately it's a growing part of Islam, and it's growing fastest in the west. Particularly Europe; parts of which are teetering on the edge of civil war because of it.

Neocons and neo-libs (Bush and Bill Clinton, respectively) have always aroused irrational hatreds. I suspect the reason may relate to their "crossover" appeal and the suspicion that they can do far more damage that a right- or left-wing idealogue. I've been checking through political BBs for over a decade, and there was never anything remotely like BDR against Clinton. Not ever. Lots of snide commentary about Monica, some criticism of Kosovo, but never the gleeful bodycounts, desperate apologia and outright cheering for the enemy that goes on today. Nothing even close.

Just where is 145 HELL? It says 145 Well (Wellington Building) where the opposition research offices were, and its directed to the office of CRG in the same building. Here's how things work around there: Because of the overlay of unfettered government unionism around Parliament Hill, the boxes have to be transported by union members, after they are labelled by the owners. It is functionally impossible for a box to be "left behind" and then discovered months later, well after the transition team has moved in, cleaned up, and set up their own offices. When the Reform Party moved into the NDP Research offices on Sparks Street in 1993, the NDP had long before moved out. Their filing cabinets still had labels on the file drawers, but the contents had long ago been boxed and moved. Had we found a box with a moving sticker on it, the first order of business would be to call whichever union was in charge of moving boxes and get them to move it. Not only is this "scandal" a non-issue that was thoroughly discussed in 2000, but the true scandal lies with the rather transparent lie that the box was just found. The Liberals apparently haven't learned anything from being drummed out of office for general skullduggery, and are still up to their tricks. It's sad really.

Which was already invaded. Never going to happen, do you know how much of the US Saudi Arabia probably own's. The fact that America has been allies of Saudi Arabia for a long time doesn't help your case. So we invade Saudi Arabia, which happen's to be one of America's allies. We declare war on Islam, which once again probably won't offend the people outside of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. That makes so much sense now, except for the fact that Saudi Arabia have been allies of the US for a long time. Italy was in North Africa, was getting beaten, then the German's came in. Once again that's a nation not the equivalent of terrorist's in caves. As for the Japanese, once again, that's a nation, not a terrorist group plotting in a cave. To compare the action's of a nation's government to that of a terrorist group is pure folly. The reason why is doing such would more likely create more enemies in that nation, if we invade Iran and Saudi Arabia we'll be faced with a brutal guerilla war for decades. It's not backpedaling ScottSA, it's pointing out the obvious. A soveriegn nation is different from a terrorist group. The only person backpedaling here is you, first you said you wanted a large scale war against Islam, yet now you have it narrowed down to a few countries. Do you want this war to be against the Muslim Brotherhood? Will you do me a personal favor and do two things? No, three. 1 Read history, at least the google version, before leaping on each post I make and blabbering at speed. The fact that something is hard or awful does not make it impossible. 2 Try to understand that, as I have tried repeatedly to explain to you, I am not "calling for war". As I have pointed out countless times, I am simply pointing out that we ARE at war. 3 Learn when to apply apostrophes. They are not mines, and do not need to be laid throughout the text every time an "s" pops its head up. Visit here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html

This is just a tired rehash of Liberal talking points from the last election. Pffft.