Ontario Loyalist

rooting? hardly. Actually, I'm thinking that Harper would like Layton and the NDP to do well in this election; having the Liberals and Bloc as his main rivals is somewhat problematic given the way he covets Quebec.

We're not living in the 80s. The situation is very, very different now.

Harper's not to blame but people like him are because they are they ones who orchastrate our role in the global economy; yet more than likely Canadians will probably still blindly elect him back into office.

This is just peachy; as with the A-Bombs, mad scientists are about to conduct an experiment the consequences of which they can only theorize about, and a few critics are claiming could cause the end of our planet. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09...e-collider.html

Another sham argument. We're talking about nation building, not building a rocket. Iraq is a perfect example. Look at how Iraq was created, how it was meant to be and how it turned out. Our resources are better spent on Canadians and for Canadians in Canada to make this country a better place. We have to make sure that our own expiriment, begun in 1867, itself succeeds.

The situation is a little different, though. Green politics is relatively new, while the politics that the Reform embodied had been around for quite some time and manifested itself in so-called "fringe parties" too. It had simply infiltrated the PCs and when that didn't work, then they broke with the party and started another one. The Reform was also a regional party, while the Greens are a national party; regional parties tend to have an advantage with the FPTP system.

That's why they're called the Opposition. The Opposition is there because people voted for parties that had policies different than that of the party that formed the government. That happens in a democracy. In this case, Harper got a minority government with less than 40% of the popular vote; the mandate that he has therefore received is to cooperate and find consensus, which was happening in the parlaiment; but Harper obviously wants to dictate Canada, and for that reason has been cooking up nonsense in order to justify another election and hopefully a majority government.

Interesting article on McHale: http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDi....aspx?e=1184299

That's a sham argument. The British were involved in these kinds of ventures in the region for centuries and by now it should be clear that these kinds of things only compound problems and sows the seeds for future ones. Afghanistan is not post-war Europe; the region has a different history, culture, and political (or lack there of) tradition. NATO is simply there to get Osama al Qaeda because one of its members was attacked; but now they're embroiled in a war against an ill-defined enemy that includes pissed-off local warlords and bands of foreign fighters. A hundred years from now Afghanistan will still be a mess and what Canada did there either forgotten or reviled, just as some now revile Britain's empirialist ventures.

This is just plain stupid.

The Greens have run in every election since 1984, have run candidates in all ridings the last few elections, got 660,000+ votes in the last election, and are funded by Canadian tax payers as are all of the other major parties. If that was the case for any other party--except for the two communist parties--I would say the same.

Not another Albertan...

"Serious contenders only"? Trust me, if the media was talking about the Christian Heritage Party every day, they were included in the debates, they would be serious contenders too. Not over night, of course, it takes awhile to groom the electorate. But the media reflects the values of the elites and will only change when forced to. And the Greens are slowly doing that. So in other words, you opinion of "serious contenders" is something that the media has infuenced you on to a considerable extent.

This is laughable.

No I don't.

Greens 2? -- what ridings? That's a lot of Independents. Is McHale amongst them?

Well, unless you consult a crystal ball, I don't know how you can tell the future with such certainty...

Elected Senate. Both the Reform and CPC want an elected senate. The only reason the CPC dropped some of its more radical agendas is because they realized that to govern means to appeal to a broader base of voters and party supporters. It doesn't mean that these ideas are dead; they're just waiting for a majority government to be resurrected.

Nay, in predicting a Harper dictatorship...

Oh, those Liberals...

The Green party?

A tad optimistic, are we?

I was hoping she wouldn't do that. It's really cheap and out-of-date. I think she really needs to back off on the ruling, and accept it for what it is; dirty politics, not sexism. The other parties don't like the Green's platform, not the leader being a woman. Whatever the case, at this point the Greens have a genuine battle scar and this is bound to earn them some respect from the electorate; pushing it too far and forcing their way into the debate may backfire.

Steve really set himself up with that remark. There's no way that the Greens would ever endorse Dion and the Liberals. The Greens have been running candidates in elections since 1984, they have a seperate platform, an autonomous party structure. This kind of dealing between Dion and May is common in European politics and really is just part of the game. Harper's playing on the lack of political sophistication of most Canadian voters. I should add, I think May is becoming the real thorn in Harper's side and will probably soon overshadow Layton's ambitions to be that person.

What freedoms don't you have because of our constitutional monarchy?????? An absolutely absurd statement.