YEGmann

I did. Found nothing. So, you do not have any "racists comment" made by Mr. Poilievre for record, do you?

Could you give a precise citation or let me call you a ... everybody knows who. Deal?

I read the article. Actually, waldo has provided the link already. I did not see any fanning the flames. Just a low level analysis of the political situation in Canada in regard to the Liberal - NDP - BQ coalition. May be with some mistakes. Ironically to you, waldo and Mr. Akin, the conclusion in the article is that the Western separation is not politically probable, i.e. not worth the efforts. No appeals to separate, no instructions, no collecting money for the separatists. I still cannot see how The Report practically supports separatists.

How does The Report support separatists? Provide a proof, please.

waldo, there is false in my claim? The Conservative government gives grants to hundreds of Canadian magazines (if counted as individual recepients). Many of them (dozens and dozens) are from Quebec. Many of the magazines are liberal, some are conservative. I cannot review all recepients of the government grants (there are probably over a thousand magazines), but definitely at least some of them do write about separatism. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'actualit%C3%A9 http://www.refletdesociete.com/Reflet-de-Societe.html By the way, writing about a separatism is not a crime in Canada. Does The Report promote something unconstitutional? jdobbin took only one magazine that appeared to stand on conservative point of view and presented this as a case of the government bias or something like that. jdobbin deliberately omitted about a thousand of other recepients. This is a pure distortion of the truth. There is also a spin in you reference.

jdobbin outperformed himself. There is only about 0.1% of truth in his post. This is a classical example of goebbelsian (liberal) propaganda. Get the full story: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/index-eng.cfm http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/list0607-eng.cfm http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/list0708-eng.cfm http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/projcts0708-eng.cfm http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/0607_recpnts-eng.cfm http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/0708_recpnts-eng.cfm http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/0809_recpnts-eng.cfm http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/0708_prjcts_mag-eng.cfm Bad job, jdobbin!

??? Have you ever heard about such toys like C-17 or C-130J?

I think that the most remarkable point here is Election Canada has no clue about the Canada Election Act. That means we cannot trust them in their interpretation of "in and out scheme".

By the way, I've just rewatched the Liberal clip again. How many Harper's sentences did coinside word for word with Howard's ones in the clip? Ten? five? The Liberals did poor job. They were able to find just two sentences that can be considered "plagiarized". And one more with one word difference. That's it. All the rest is not plagiarism.

Yes, the Liberals made this clip in order to mislead lazy Canadian population. You cannot tell plagiarism from the two overlaping sound fragments. Few people will take some efforts to compare transcripts. Actually, the Liberals placed a link to the transcripts on their website. And if you compare the full transcripts, not just selected pieces, you can see that it is not that brutal. Harper's speech is much more extensive than the comparison to the Howard "equivalent" the Liberal provided. This is actually striking - large blank spaces against Harper's paragraphs where should have been Howard's "originals" the Liberals want us to belive Harper plagiarized. Howard's speech of March 18, 2003 is large too, several pages in the transcript. No doubt, the Harper's speechwriter used it. But a very small portion of it. The Liberals found just 36 sentences with similar subject. It should be noted that Harper used many of these sentences as just a source of information on the Iraqi crisis development that Howard had delivered to the world community. Comparing this to plagiarism is plain ridiculous. Typically the speechwriter changed Howard's phrases in one way or another, it is not blunt cut-and-paste. However, five (five and a half, to be precise) sentences sleeped in the Harper's speech unchanged. I do not think a student would be expelled in this situation. This is a typical Liberal elephant made out of a mole hill. I can hardly see any relevance of that speech to the current situation. Though, I know, this will not change the point of view of the Liberal suppoters. This is for somebody who has some gray substance in the head.

Yes, five sentences out of 97.

In technical academics everything that is less than 10% is considered a noice.

As for pure plagiarism, Harper's speech contains only five sentences coinciding word-to-word with John Howard's phrases. One sentence differs with presence of "the"article. This is not a big deal for 97-sentence political speech.

I realized that you are not disputing legality of the decision. In my view you are trying to question the common sence, the very simple reason why the judge found the delay necessary. The timing is just a coincidense, a milestone set when nobody expected the election. Nevertheless, I somehow agree with you on your first point, i.e., appeal on Gomery case. Again, nothing wrong, but a flavour of some deliberate action can be felt, if there is adesire to feel it. On the other hand it can be typical bureaucratic inertia...

From your link: "Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland ultimately agreed that the hearing can't proceed until the experts have reported on the tape's authenticity. He said he'll set a deadline for the reports after mulling over both sides' arguments." Do you have a problem with that? By the way, "Dearden said he was stunned by Paliare's charges and warned that the lawyer's conduct could result in the Liberal party having to pay even more should they lose the defamation suit. "In a libel action, the conduct of the defendant's counsel and the conduct of the defendants can go to the issue of aggravated damages," he said."

Large surpluses are not balanced budgets.

I think this is totally wrong interpretation. If the author and the Cadmans did something wrong, damaging to the reputation of Mr. Harper, he would sue them too. Compensation can be in not monetary form. He might at least demand an apology from them. But there is no issue with them. You cannot point out their fault. Where you are right it is a definite intent of the CPC to put financial strain on the Liberals in this tense time.

To understand the situation one needs to have two things. 1. Unbiased view of who actually did what. 2. At least basic knowledge of laws. 1. Neither the author nor the Cadman's family ever said "the Tories offered a bribe" to Chuck Cadman. They all said that Chuck told them about that. There is no any accusation of Mr. Harper in any wrongdoing from their side. The fact that Zytaruk altered the tape is not a crime. It is his tape, he can do whatever he wants with it. There is absolutely no basis for suing them. 2. This is the Liberals who publicly accused Mr. Harper in a serious crime and damaged his reputation. The Libs explicitly stated that Mr. Harper commited the crime. The actions of the Liberals is a valid basis for suing them in accordance with Canadian (and any other similar) law. Is this clear for you? Am I mistaken?

Actually, they did. It was Paul Martin who allocated money for the ships (about $3 bln, if I am not mistaken). Now after bidders submitted their estimates, this budget is not enough. Harper physically cannot proceed with the deal unless a bidder lowers the numbers or a new budget is approved. It takes time. But pro-liberal mass-media and people are hurrying to score political points while they can.

I am affraid this is not precisely true. Russia, as far as I am concerned, has not recognised independence of South Ossetia. So far Russia has not disputed SO being part of the state of Georgia. There is no doubt it was Russian aggression under the pretex of "Russian citizens were killed in South Ossetia."

1. Sorry, bk59, this is you must read both link and that post. EC just said that it did not find similar activity in the other parties submissions for 2004 and 2006 elections. They tried (for limited set of data) but did not find. This is very different from saying the other parties never did that. This is not semantics. In this way EC gives itself shiny look in mass media immediately and reserves a room for withdrawal if (when) somebody presents facts showing the opposite. EC may say something like "Our announcement was based on following our approved procedures, which required review of 99 or 19 or 9 per cent of all submissions. Sorry we have the right for a mistake too." 2. Steve Janke (http://stevejanke.com) has done investifgation on how EC reviews election spending submissions. To his great surprise, EC assigns certain people to review certain parties and do not rotate them. Thus different people reviews different parties. Because different people interpret laws differently, there is no uniform standard applied to all parties equally. And I would like to hear an answer why EC did not issued a warning to the Conservtives after 2004 elections. Was the scheme less "unlawful" then than now? And you again: "The RCMP said there was not enough evidence to proceed with an investigation or charges in the Cadman affair. That doesn't make it true!" See? Actually RCMP said that they reviewed all (absolutely all, 100%) relevant infromation plus liberals' gossips and found no (nill, zero) evidence of any wrongdoing. But yours (actually, I know, it's not yours) is a good try in the smear campaign.

1. Election Canada never said that. 2. Review process of different parties is different and subjective at EC.

It's amasing argument! All liberal taxes are applied on the wholesale level. This is sellers or providers who transfer the tax on their prices for consumers to pay. Including diesel at the pumps.

You both guys are funny. Lots of blind faith in liberals but little of knowledge of the true liberal policy. Please read: http://thegreenshift.ca/pdfs/green_shift_book_en.pdf page 26: "A carbon tax will apply at the wholesale level, across the country, to the full range of fossil fuels including coal, propane, natural gas, oil and diesel – based on their level of carbon emissions." Diesel will be exempt for the the first year of the plan.

You substitute one problem with another. Liberals lie, they say "you save the planet and it costs you nothing!" Tory do not lie they say "if you want to follow this climate change rush, it will cost you dearly!" I think Tory's position is honest, Liberals position is dishonest.