Carinthia

Who cares? The last time I looked there was a Maple Leaf at the top of this forum.

We have not seen the potential toughness of Obama yet. I have no doubt that he will bring out the full guns if he wins the nomination. He is holding back on Hillary because she is democrat and also to maintain his platform of change, which means change from old party campaigning techniques. He has done well leaving the dirty tricks all up to Hillary and she has bitten the bait. Currently, he is on a pedestal and that's just where he wants to stay. Why change what's working? I wouldn't underestimate what he has in store for McCain. We may just see the another side of this facinating man.

After seeing George Bush get re-elected in 2004, I wouldn't bet any money on the Dems voting on the popular vote theory. Strange things do seem to happen in the U.S. that are nothing short of mind boggling to some of us. I will be awaiting your example of how Canada does the same thing BC.

Earlier I stated that I didn't think teens should be incarcerated. There have been a few times in the past few years, where I've read about a horrific crime comitted by a teen and I did think he/she should have spent years in the clink. The thought of some of these kids who murder, (Reena Virk), being out on the street in 3 years is frustrating. I guess I am as torn on this subject as a lot of people are these days.

Go back and read post #3. I'm not going to go around in circles.

Garnering votes not possible for non-citizens? Duh, no really? And here all this time I've been commenting on the American election and now I find out I can't even vote! Gee, I guess I'll stop commenting now. Clinton being elected after the first campaign was because he and his wife did a superb job of casting doubt on the allegations. The fact that Hillary backed him to the hilt, even though I'm sure she was well aware of his indescretions, told me that she would sell her soul to the devil for power. It did come back to bite them in the ass though didn't it?

The fact that McCain's wife was addicted to prescription drugs and overcame her addiction, is meaningless to me. However, I do think that there are certain things in the past lives of candidates that should be revealed. When politicians campaign, they put forward their best front. If the relevant negative issues are not revealed, how can we judge their true character? Their conduct throughout their lives, does and should have an impact on us. It's up to us to decide what is relevant to our own individual standards of conduct. It was revealed during Bill Clinton's first campaign, that he had a history of cheating on his wife. This did have an impact on my opinion of him. It signified to me as an individual, that he had a capacity for deceit in his character. I could not differentiate his cheating on his wife from possibly cheating on the people he served. Deceit is deceit to me, no matter who their victim is.

My friend and I were just talking today about the increase of crime amongst the teens in our little town now, as opposed to years ago. (pop 3000). I've lived here for over 30 years and raised my kids here. My kids are now well into adulthood. Vandalism was practically unheard of here when my kids were teens. Now it's an every weekend occurance. Lights smashed out at the mall, personal property broken, cars being stolen for joy riding and left wrecked. Businesses broken into on a regular basis. Up until the last 10 years, we never had to lock our cars in our own driveway. Now you wouldn't think of not locking it up. We have had no change in the size of the population and we are a one industry town, so we have not experienced a demographic change in the population either. We need to ask ourselves WHY are our kids acting out this way? Is it stemming from our own busy lives and not having enough time to pay full attention to them? Are we excusing their unruly behaviour because we feel a sense of guilt about this? Is the rise in broken homes and more kids having step parents an issue? Is the cause the result of a drug epidemic? Or a lack of consistency in parenting? I would add poverty too, but I don't see much desparate poverty in this isolated area. One could assume boredom may be the cause but the kids who were raised here in the 60's, 70's and 80's had no more entertainment opportunities than the kids who live here today. Until we discover the reason for the increase in crime amongst teens, and we are actually willing to face and change the reasons, we will not find a solveable way to deal with them. An insurmountable task, me thinks. I raised my teens as a hard working single Mom, so I know first hand how hard it can be. Incarcerating teens is not the answer. To me, it compounds the problem for kids who are already cynical and confused. It just guarantees them a road to hell.

When I read this nonsense the word "dictator" quickly comes to mind. As that is what you have become accustomed to with your current regime, you must be thinking this is normal.

Since America has been busy poking it's nose in everybody else's business for the past 50 or so years, well yeah, I guess the world will make it their business to pay close attention to what's going on there.

This is more than a media hit job. The media is trying to enlighten everybody about his big weakness, and one that has given him a reputation for quite a few years. The example that they used in the clip with the reporter was pretty lame, but they are not going to let up on this troubling characteristic of his.

Last night, Keith Olbermann (MSNBC), played video clips of 4 different military Generals expressing their fear of McCain and his temper. This, coupled with him singing his rendition of "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", gives me the shudders.

Good point indeed. I winced when I first saw it. Insults should not be tolerated in any form. What's the difference if you post something insulting or use your handle to do it? Bush_Cheney's name is not really insulting, just bizzarre to me personally.

Since 70% of Americans voted against Bush_Cheney in the House of Representative election of November 2006 and you joined this forum in January 2007, what's a person supposed to presume?

You thought wrong. My choice of name comes from the name of a ship that I once sailed on. She was owned by Cunard lines. I did notice however, that she listed a little to the left more often than she did to the right.

If felt the same way about the name Bush_cheney . When a person gives themselves a name that is antagonistic, they lose credibility before they even get going. It's a statement that signifies to me that they are not truly open to debate. I hope you don't leave AW, you have much to offer. Your opinions are given in the true sense of debate, and are delivered in a respectful manner. I always enjoy reading your posts.

I agree, this is a great forum. I can't speak for anybody else but in my time here, I have not seen any biased censoring by the moderators at all. This one is well run, as opposed to some others I have had the displeasure of participating in.

There will be a nominee in the end regardless of how they get there and then the fun will begin on tearing McCain to shreads. Man, have they got 7 years of ammo. Can't wait!

Naw, all they would need is a few dirty bombs placed in large populated places and presto, poof, gone. Of course, low resource areas of the world would be hit first.

Yes, so comforting to know that they are all on the same page and play the same sleazy games. I can sleep at night now.

I think at one time this group may have had some influence, as it was pretty low key. Now, when they meet, it is announced to the press. So how dangerous could they be now? Just the rich and powerful getting together for a spa weekend in some expensive fancy place. And maybe an intimidation tactic or even better, a diversion from the real group who are meeting elsewhere the same weekend. The idea of secret committee's or what have you, certainly interest me Topaz, but the chances of us finding out who they are and their agenda, is pretty remote.

I don't believe we do know what was said. We have a memo from the Tory mouthpiece as to what HE said was said. To my knoweledge the conversation was not taped. If this conversation happened the way it says in the memo, can you give me one good reason why it was leaked to the media or what purpose this would have served? Why, if not to interfere in the election, would they have done this? If this was a well meaning and innocent disclosure why not report that Hillary also gave her assurances that nothing would happen re NAFTA, as per her "take it with a grain of salt"?

A tale of two leaks... Ian Brodie, Harper's chief of staff, has been accused of being the source of the CTV News report. Brodie also allegedly told CTV reporters that people from the Clinton camp told Canadians to take her NAFTA concerns with a grain of salt. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/06/memo-leak.html

I would think that most working Canadians would feel more comfortable with appropriate above board dialogue between our nations rather than back room shenanigans and manipulation.

Bush is a country bumpkin and an embarrassment. Doing a jig on the steps of the Whitehouse while waiting for McCain so he could give him the kiss of death, was so un Presidential. Americans are dying every day in Iraq and this President is dancing around without a care in the world. Impressive, I must say.