Ontario Loyalist

Where's the document. In fact, where's any document written by any member of the Iroquois prior to the arrival of Europeans. it's easy to make up stories and "facts" when there is no written evidence to work with.

I'd say that Harper belived in it wholeheartedly waybackwhen whilst a member of the Reform party and conveniently has forgotten about it now that that early idealism has allowed him to become PM. So if a MP will not side with his constituents when it comes to matters in the House, why should I trust him/her in any other respect. Obviously he's not there in my best interest. Maybe he'll help me get a permit or something secretly hoping that it will win him a vote, but who cares? So to say that he represents me in Parlaiment is ludicrous to the extreme--he only represents his party.

Evidently you don't know your own leader's position on the Senate. He once stated: "if the Senate cannot be elected, then is should be abolished." What does "on certain issues" mean to you? To me it suggests that I'm implying that there are specific issues that the majority of constituants would be opposed to, perhaps even some Conservative supporters. Should he vote in accordance with the wishes of his constituents or follow the party line?

More like ideology is clouding your judgement. One of the driving forces of capitalism is the need to maximize profits and in doing so whether or not the individual can afford the product is of no concern to the producer. That's why we don't have $10 dvd players.

Central Nova

Have, not had. Phone your MP and ask him or her yourself. I'm supposing your MP isn't and never has been a Conservative. In my riding over 60% of the people voted for a party other than Conservative. Then why is my MP voting with the Conservatives and not for what the majority of his constituants want on certain issues?

Was my post really that difficult ot understand? So what you're saying is that if a member of a party with a certain stance on a certain policy becomes my MP, if I go to that MP with a concern about that certain policy which conflicts with his stance, he's going to "go to bat for" me anyway...?????

I believe because of biofuels, farming has finally become profitable again. Farming is unprofitable because people like you don't want to pay a fair price for the food that you over eat. The World Bank... I'm sorry, but famine, starvation etc. is something that has existed for quite some time and in the modern world has become exacerbated by captialism. This issue with biofuels has been around for about a year or so now and it's now being blamed for famine in the third world? Okay, the issue here is how the biofuel situation is being attributed to the Greens rather than looking at the real cause as determined by capitalist market forces. Biofuels are produced by corporations trying to make a profit who by corn etc from farmers who for decades have been undercompensated for their product. Of course farmers are going to switch to something that is more profitable--they want to raise families and pay off their debts just like you. Now, if they were paid a fair price for the edible grains that they grow, then there would be less incentive for them to produce for the biofuel market. And, like I said, biofuels can be derived from non-edible sources.

My, my yet another juvenile post. Who would have thunk it?

Yet you support the Conservatives who want an elected senate or to have it abolished outright. No, if I vote for a party and it doesn't get elected, then I'm not represented.

No I'm saying that substituting one biased agenda with another doesn't make the substituting agenda any more truthful/accurate. All people who are driven by ideology are determined that their narrow view of the world is the pure truth. Also, by focusing on the "historical wrongdoings of Europeans" you totally ignore the "historical wrongdoings" of Natives. These people were not saints by any stretch of the imagination, and they had social practices which you--even if you are a Native, which I assume you are--would find utterly abhorrant. Our concept of human rights did not exist in Native societies; life was often brutal, short, and governed by superstitions and oppressive social conditions. I am not willing to accept or defend the more unfortunate aspects of European society, but that does not mean I'm going to sympathize people with people whose ancestors were no better or, most likely, much worse, just for the sake of political correctness and fear of being called a racist.

The problem with the economy is in part due to high fuel prices, which some would say are abnormally high. We know that Harper is tight with Big Oil and they're the ones who are benefiting from this situation; why would you want to vote the guy in for more of the same?

Yawn... really? Democracy is for losers? It would really be great if the issue could be discussed in a more intelligent and rational manner. You know that there are fundamental principles involved. Or at least you should. In a democracy, the people should be fairly represented. That means that if 5%, 12%, 15%, or 21% of the electorate vote for a party, that should be reflected in government. The system proposed is used successfully in Europe. It still astonishes me that people cling to simplistic misconceptions about how it would work.

Biofuel can be produced from a number of sources and doesn't have to come from the edible part of a plant. There is a lot of corporate interests involved in development of biofuel. Same goes for farmers; they'll grow whatever makes them the most money. But of course you'll happily foist the blame on environmentalists. As it stands, though, the third world is starving anyway. Why? It has nothing to do with growing food for fuel, rather the cost, logistics, etc. of transporting the food to places where the population cannot be sustained. Let's see one example of where they advocate it? Or is this just another example of a stupd M.Dancer post, like so many thousand of others?

There's a slight possibility that she could win her own riding. There are a few ridings in BC and Ontario that are slightly possible as well. The thing about our electoral system is that it favours regional parties and that's not what the Greens are. They are a national party. However, it looks as though parts of BC are becoming a Green region as well as southwestern Ontario, if the last provincial election is any indication. The Greens are the only real alternative for change, and it remains to be seen if that's what Canadians really want. My guess is no; Canadians have been groomed to be politically unsophisticated and content too maintain the status quo.

I don't know how it would "fall flat" considering that the Greens advocate the use of alternate fuels, and would be the most committed to finding solutions to the current problem. Our dependency on oil is in part due to the willingness of the Conservatives and Liberals to allow corporations to get their way, and theoretically they should be punished by an angry electorate for allowing this to happen. Instead, one of them is likely to get elected back in and the parties (NDP and Greens) most willing to do something about it will not.

Sheer nonsense. We're talking about a specific scientific experiment that could have (had) a profound detrimental impact on life of this planet.

Were you born in the 1920s??? The revisionist history that's going on nowadays is stridently ideological, along the linds of what the Soviets did when they assumed power; no coincidence considering that much of feminism is derived from Marxist-Leninist ideology. Sorry, but the Left is not the embodiment of "the truth" by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, that's right; I've read your learned posts on how Mulroney wasn't responsible for the fiscal disaster that Martin had to clean up. The article states that girls as young as SEVEN were engaged in a "full range of sex acts" in these pics/vids. How do you know she didn't harm anyone???? Please, possessing this kind of material is a clear indicator that the possibility exists that she has victimized or will victimized. Demand creates supply. Are many of these videos and pics not produced by individuals and then "shared"? Yes, thank you for clearly stating your opinion of this kind of material.

Yes, there is a danger in it; first off, from a purely moral perspective; secondly, the fact that viewing will in a number of cases morph into producing.

If I recall correctly, it was reported that one of Harper's aides had "instructed" the RCMP to keep reporters wanting to ask Harper about this issue away; about ten minutes later the same reporter corrected it a little stating that the RCMP was there to provide security for Harper and not to impede journalists from reporting on the story, and that Harper would shortly address the issue in his planned speech, which he did. Whatever the case, no apology this time.

You mean, like yours? No, mine has televised images that when put on certain channels will provide me with news coverage...

Oh, that's right, Indians never engaged in warfare or had warriors and such uncivilized nonsense. It's not like they eagerly traded with Europeans to get access to guns, knives, and metal in order to fashion weapons...

on TV

Now CTV is reporting that the RCMP is being instructed to keep reporters away from Harper so that he doesn't have to answer questions about this issue...