kengs333

That's not the impression I get.

Thanks, but I never said anything about "the Jews" rather "the Jewish community" and I'm not saying that "the Jews" control the media or that "the Jews" speak with a "unified voice". Whatever the case, political parties view the Jewish community as a key demographic. Why? Because they do have a significant political and economic influence in this society.

Not really. The PCs are effectively dead and buried, usurped by the Reform/CA, so the Liberals are no less immune to being eradicated. Of course none of the parties on the left have the fraticidal desire to destroy their rival like the Reform/CA did. That was nasty, indeed. Sadly, this is the party that may now form a majority. To bad they discarded all those quaint notions about democratic reform and made the transition to quasi-fascism.

"Fringe" as in the TV series? Or did you mean "fringe"? The Greens may eventually become the left-of-centre alternative to the Liberals, but I doubt that the Liberals would ever consider merging. Out of pride, they will continue to exist and hang on as a minor party, a relic of a bygone era.

Just fine, thank you. Ontario simply doesn't need the help of other provinces; that has always been the case historically, and it is always been Ontario's lot to carry the burden of other provinces. Coming from New Brunswick, I'm sure this is a perspective that you can't fully appreciate.

In Ontario goes down, so does what is now Canada; Canada breaks up into region if Ontario is not there to hold it together. As far as I'm concerned, Ontario can go it alone, while some of the other provinces never could. Also, I think much of what is wrong with Canada can be directly attributed to Harris/Eves, and should serve as a warning to Canadians what is in store with a Harper majority. Conservative governments always talk the talk, but rarely manage to walk the walk.

I watched this on CPAC last night and Garth didn't do the best job of extracating himself from the situation, but ultimately, who cares? I'm sure that the campaign was simply annoyed by CPAC's intrusion and set something up quickly to placate them.

It sounds like a factual statement to me. Were there not several high profile defections a year or so ago from the Liberal camp in regards to the Liberal's stance on Israel's little war? And was there not discussion just prior to the election about offending the Jewish community because of the date of the election? It's certainly not anti-semetic to suggest that the Jewish community has a significant number of people in positions of power/influence given its relatively small size (about 1% of the population), but to suggest that as a result the community has influence on politics is anti-semetic? That's curious. Also, Izzy Asper used to be a big supporter of the Liberals, and now I believe three of his children sit on the board for Canwest. I'm not sure what their political leaning is, but it's probably not Liberal (anymore). Also, didn't Izzy stop running Gwyn Dyer's column due to his position on the Middle East crisis. Whatever the case, with Canada's rapidly increasing muslim population, this should eventually change.

Ontario is Canada.

Interesting response. The government is in the business of regulating things like alcohol and tobacco because their usage is widespread and lucrative. I suppose that one day this could be extended to other substances as well. Whatever the case, the government has legal sanction to do so, and the people who produce contraband smokes are undermining our society in several ways, and that needs to be stopped.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to consider the Queen "a bit of a Nazi". There was considerable sympathy for Hitler and the Nazis in all levels of British society, but few people really recognized what they were all about (not even the Germans) until it was too late. The Royal family has German roots, one of its members was apparently open to what the Nazis were all about, but there's no reason to suggest that the current Queen was in any way inclined towards agreeing with Nazi ideology.

And how long is it gonna take for the USA to pay up for the war in Iraq...? Not in our lifetime.

Oh, wow, doesn't this concern anybody? A massive amount of criminal activity is taking place, and nobody want to do anything about it.

Why is it that the strident republicans are always the ones who also seem to be high of having a strong military, yet they are essentially disrespecting the sacrifices that our veterans made in fighting for the Empire during the Boer War, WWI and WWII. The Queen is our head-of-state, that's simply the way it is; that is our system, a system that derives from the most successful and long-standing democratic tradition in the modern world. People who go around advocating republicanism are borderline traitors; they want to undermine a system that works relatively well and is more flexible in adapting to the changing modern world and want to replace it with a system that breed corruption and time and again has been proven to be inherently flawed. That said, whether of not the Queen is able to come to Canada in 2010, I think it's a role best suited for Prince Charles. Let's hope that he has the chance to come here prior to that, too--but of course the government is trying to keep this from happening, as it has already several times in the past.

For anyone interested, here is a link to the first of four articles about contraband cigarettes in Canada: http://thespec.com/News/Discover/article/405455

Should be interesting to see what kind of controversy surrounds this election. No doubt he is starting to act like he's the next president because something's in the works--there's too much at stake for too many people in positions of power for the US to maintain the same disasterous course.

This slipped my mind, so I'll comment on it now. I don't quite recall the "salting" part, but I do remember something about a mound (or mounds) and that the City had to demonstrate that these were not constructed by Indians. The Red Hill creek was a site used by Indians for millenia, but not by (Five)Six Nations prior to the 1650s or after the early 1700s when they were driven out by the Ojibway. I actually find it kind of distasteful that Six Nations would lay claim to Red Hill considering that their ancestors exterminated the Neutrals who once utilized the the region, and this is the kind of warping of history that has caused me lose sympathy for these people. I'm all for human rights, but when people start bolstering their activist propaganda with dubious historical legitimacy, I'm not interested.

I neither know the circumstance behind how she assumed this position, nor am I going to simply take your assessment of their character at face value. Before 200, the same probably could have been said for Michael Seifert. Something tells me that you haven't talked to many Muslims. All of the Muslims that I've talked to have at some point either tried to convert me and/or gone on about the Jews and how they control the media. All of them.

You really can't say that, though, because you don't really know if she's telling the truth.

You specifically stated late 1800s.

The basis for "self-government" is the fact that the Canadian government "stole" land from the so-called "First Nations" back in the 1800s, which is now five or six generations ago. The fact that some Indian cildren were abused in schools is not really relevant to establishing so-called "First Nations" as self-governing bodies. First of all, abuse is something that many children of all stripes used to endure in the educational system; secondly, incidents of sexual abuse among residential school children was probably no greater than at non-residential schools, and probably was extremely rare; thirdly, we always have to keep in mind the fact that so-called "First Nations" societies were themselves inherently brutal, inwardly and outwardly, and the Canadian government was justified in trying to rectify this. I've stated this before; it's a no win situation: had the government allowed the Indians to carry on as they "traditionally" lived, we would be sitting here arguing about how it is that Canada could deny these people human rights by not educating them, etc. But in trying to educate them and give the the ability to conform to modern society--something the rest of us also have no choice in doing--we as a result sit here and argue about how Canada is supposedly responsible for "genocide" and other human rights violations. Well, since you raised the issue; I think that being able to fly an airliner and orchastrate some sort of terrorist plot requires a certain degree of sophistication and competance. So maybe that's why it hasn't happened. The truth of the matter, is, though, that such suicide attacks are born out of a certain mindset and culture, and just because that doesn't happen to be the m.o. of so-called "First Nations," it doesn't mean that these people don't operate with a similar sort of intention. The whole Caledonia situation smacks of this; what exactly is behind the sudden desire to "reclaim" this land that they legally sold long, long ago? What's behind these astronomical sums of money that they want to extort from the Canadian government? It's born of a kind of fanaticism itself; it's not simply an attempt at getting "justice," rather to deliberately undermine Canada, weaken and impoverish it--to slowly chip away at it until the great colonial oppressor is eliminated. If you think that, despite its faults, Canada is a good thing, then this should concern you.

Monica Lewinski boring? I was thinking along the lines of mud bog racing or coon hunting and other such hallmarks of American "culture".

Speaking of ignorance, when European immigrants arrived in "the late 1800s" so-called aboriginals were not here "helping them". They either arrived at Halifax, Quebec or Montreal, which happened to be non-Indian urban centres. Whatever the case, there's nothing more pointless than accusing someone else of being "ignorant". Many people are frustrated by the conduct of so-called "First Nations" because of the manner in which they handle their affairs and themselves; the frustration is born out of being informed about this issue, not by being ignorant. God knows how much I've read about Indians in Canada, and all of this reading--the vast majority of it from a pro-Indian perspective--has really left me disappointed by these people. I think that they have much to do to earn the respect and sympathy of Canadians; extorting the Canadian government and accusing Canadians of being "racists" and blaming them for what happened five or six generations ago is not the way to do it...

There are innumerable choices from American "culture" that I could choose from; now let's see...

soowas, Borg may be a little blunt in what he writes, but it certainly isn't "uninformed rhetoric, very biased opinions, [and] outright ignorance"--not by a long shot. I think just about anyone here is capable of understanding and sympathizing with what the Canadian government has at times done to Indians (and Inuit), but during the last few decades "First Nations" activists have become so strident and shrill that they have probably alienated many people who may otherwise have been supportive, myself included. We all see how it goes at Caledonia, how everything is victim mentality on the part of Six Nations, and every time Six Nations doesn't get what it wants, then there are accusations of racism and the use of lawlessness to try and force the issue. What decent, law-abiding Canadian citizen would want to side with people of that ilk in an effort to support them in their quest to establish their own "nations"? And who, for that matter, really thinks that anything good can come out of Canada becoming balkanized in the way that it could if these people get their way? (Let's not forget that race is the motivating factor for "self-government"--the hypocracy is unbelievable.) Puck, feel free to quote/plagerize anything I write...