Ontario Loyalist

You suspect? Well, I suspect that she's a gold digger, and there's certainly more evidence to support that theory than yours. It's so easy to stereotype, isn't it? Just because a woman leaves a man doesn't mean that he's abusive. Actually, according to some of the feminist literature that I've read, most abused women are "trapped" in relationships by controlling men. The fact that she apparently departed with ease, that he's on here complaining about how his rights have been infringed upon rather than hunting her down and murdering her, seems to suggest that he could actually be the victim. You seem to be missing the fact that he's complaining about being used, which suggests that SHE was the one who viewed him as the "commodity". Not vice versa. Of course. Does that go for the reverse situation, too? If a woman shacks up with a guy that ditches her after siring a few kids? Probably not. Try looking at things on an individual basis, rather than stereotyping. It would seem to me that as a woman you should be more inclined to being fair and objective considering that woman have disproportionately been victims of the same kind of nonsense you're piling on him.

Actually, why don't the Liberals not run candidates in some strong Green ridings so that the Greens can have their rightful place in Parlaiment?

If the Americans can manage an orderly and informative televised debate for candidates for a party's presidential candidacy, then why can't we manage to add one more party to the debate? The Green Party is a major party now and has the right to participate.

I doubt you'd be this flippant if the roles were reversed. Maybe your world, but there are people in the rest of the world who kind of expect their partners to be faithful and committed to a relationship once they've entered into it. Seems to me you've been watching too much Ally McBeal and Sex in the City You're really in a position to tell someone to "grow up"? Needless to say, there are a number of factors that would rightfully disuade many from heading your advice.

I pay little attention to polls. They should not be published during an election, either.

Who cares if she's a woman or not--I hardly think that disgruntled Clinton supporters are going to jump ship just because they have a woman running mate (who happens to be an anti-abortion, pro-gun, moose-meat eating "hockey mom" (when she said that I'm sure half the people watching were wondering what "hockey" means))--she just does not come across as experienced or capable enough for the position of VP, or Pres. if McCain can't finish the term--which is certainly possible all things considered. I think the Republicans are toast.

One thing I've never understood about people who support the Cons is that every time somebody is critical of the party or Harper, it's always "but the Liberals this... the Liberals that..." We're not talking about the Liberals, nor am I a supporter of the party. This is about Harper alone and how deceptive he is.

Where's the "irrational" in it? Harper's so deceptive it's not even funny.

I think Diefenbaker was as staunchly pro-Canadian as they get, which is, I believe, part of the reason that the Arrow was nixed... I like the idea that the ship, should it ever be completed, will be named after him. (Officially, I believe, that it will be named the John G. Diefenbaker.) But there's certainly a certain sense of irony here: The Chief was staunchly pro-Canadian and Empire/Commonwealth, a true example of what a Tory should be; but Harper is a pro-American republican. I'm quite certain that Diefenbaker would be appalled by the likes of Harper and would have many a choice thing to say to him had he the chance to do so. Just another example of Harper's deception.

Just a thought: it seems rather interesting that Harper would be making such a big deal about the North again right now, just before a possible election, and making a point of how the Arctic should be exploited; piss off some people enough so that they'll vote Green rather than Liberal, perhaps?

Maybe they know enough to realize that in general Canadians don't want an election. You know Harper would just drone on about how the Liberals brought this "unwanted" election about. Moreover, if they can work it so that the Conservatives eventually doing it for them... why should they? And that appears to be what's happening. Let's not forget that while the Liberals don't have great representation in Parlaiment, they still have powerful, experiences, and influential people who are no doubt offering advice; Harper and his cronies don't have the experience to match this, and I think that they're slowly being worn down and boxed into a position that is much to their disadvantage--and they don't even realize it. Harper would be a fool to call an election--especially before Sept. 8.

This book isn't an autobiography, though.

Is this a preamble? "The federal debt climbed past $50 billion in 1977, past $100 billion in 1980, and past $200 billion in 1985. Part of this increase was due to inflation, but even in GDP-related terms the debt rose from a low of 18.4 per cent in 1975 to 46.3 per cent ten years later, and it just kept rising. Public debt charges durin this same period ballooned from $3.2 billion to $22.4 billion, or as a proportion of GDP from 2.1 per cent to 5.2 per cent." (Paul Martin: A Political Biography, 96) "The 1985-86 fiscal year, the first period with the Tories fully in control, showed a slight drop in program spending, to $86.1 billion from $87.1 billion the year before. But soon spending was on the rise again, reaching $122.6 billion in 1992-93 near the end of the Tory reign. At 17.5 per cent, this was almost as high in real terms as the levels late in the Trudeau era that the Tories had found so excessive when they sat on the opposition benches." (Paul Martin: A Political Biography, 99) "The accumulated debt continued to its inexorable rise, passing $300 billion in March 1988, despite the perpetual blather from Mulroney and Wilson about their valiant attacks on the deficit." (Paul Martin: A Political Biography, 99) "The Tories came to power at a moment when the last lingering effects of the early-1980s recession were sinking into memory. These were boom times. The economy was showing robust growth, unemployment was was falling... According to Keynsian theory, it is under favourable conditions such as these that governments should put their houses in order, to prepare for a rainy day.... But Keynes had fallen out of favour.... In his first and subsequent budgets, Wilson also announced reductions in personal income tax, with the biggest cuts going to those with the biggest incomes. Not only did this produce a less progressive income tax, but it also limited the government's ability to tame the deficit." (Paul Martin: A Political Biography, 97/98) "The accumulated debt passed the $400-billion mark in 1991 and the half-trillion mark soon after Paul Martin became finance minister near the end of 1993.... The Mulroney government became more serious about fighting the deficit only as Canada was about to enter its long recession." (Paul Martin: A Political Biography, 101/102) etc. etc. etc.

I think you seriously misunderstand and underestimate Islam.

The Progressive Canadian party is probably the best option, but it remains to be seen just how many candidates they will be able to field.

A minority government indicates that the electorate doesn't consider any of the parties to have a suitable agenda, and the suitable course in that case is for the varying parties to compromise. Harper, however, recognizing that the Liberals were a little disorganized and that the Canadian people had grown somewhat tired of politics and were not interested in another election, have treated their minority government as though it were a majority. In doing so, and with the Liberals allowing them to plod along in such a manner, the Conservatives have gradually shown that they are too inept and out-of-touch to be the ruling party. Harper thinks that he's reached a point where it's to his advantage that an election should be called, but he's sadly mistaken.

Nonsense. Let's see this "dictionary description," then.

So if we start drilling and mining this will magically cause an invisible barrier to form around the arctic that is impervious to Russian aggression?!?! Hmmm... that's interesting. As far as I'm concerned, if we go up there exploring and writing reports about the findings, we're potentially fuelling their desire for control of the region.

You tell me. This is something that I don't exactly need to be quizzed on. I'm kinda aware of that. What we're talking about here is a party that assumes a nickname that has traditionally represented an ideology that this party does not fully embody. Why do they do this? Because it makes them more palatable. It's all part of the deception.

Yeah, the point is that the CPC aren't really "Tories" and the use of the term is part of their deception.

Yeah, but it is being used, just not in the crassly and short-sighted manner in which Steve and all the other neo-cons would like.

Sorry, but I think anyone nowadays who views an ecosystem only in terms of potential monetary value is pretty out of touch. The Arctic has a global significance in an untouched state that is now undeniable. Enough has been done to it as it is.

Ruskies? You actually wouldn't mind them possessing parts of continental North America? That's crazy.

For all those concerned about the environment this is nothing short of diabolical; we need to be protecting the North, not exploiting it. And that he can boil it down to such an inane cliche! http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=2242

Well, I think that the media is incorrect for doing so, but this shouldn't be a surprise because the media is so error-prone nowadays that it's no longer funny. I can't tell you how often I've read/heard the use of the Queen of England, British Royal Family, the GG referred to as our "Head of State"... Of course the CPC is going to refer to themselves as Tories; they're trying to present themselves as the heirs to the Canadian conservativism, which is all part of the deception.