Barts

Perhaps, blueblood, you could reference those sections of "The British North America Act, 1867" that pertain to individual rights, of the sort found in the Charter of Rights and Freedom or even the irrelevant Bill of Rights.

In my view, the issue of confidence is not the budget, regardless of its measures, but Stephen Harper himself. Can the Opposition MPs, in good conscience, permit Harper to remain in government given his failures, duplicity, and demonstrated obsession with destroying his political opponents regardless of the cost to the country? If Harper is defeated, the coalition will govern for, at least, 2 1/2 years and likely three. The Bloc will not make common cause with the Conservatives to defeat the Liberal/NDP coalition after the 18 months of supporting confidence votes they've promised unless the coalition is doing something grossly antithetical to Quebec's interests, which it won't. The Coalition can adopt whatever measures might be in the budget that it agrees with, and it would insure a period of stability-at least 2 1/2 years, likely 3--which the country sorely needs. With Harper as Prime Minister, the country is in for a period of instability, further parliamentary dysfunction, and regional divisiveness. Moreover, by leaving Harper in power, the Opposition parties--particularly the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff--are putting their political and electoral fates in the hands of man who not only hates them, but wants to annihilate them. Do you not agree that if Harper is left in power, when he does go for an election his manifesto will contain naive populist measures that, if passed should he win the election, would be used to destroy the other parties' capacity to raise political donations and fund their activities? Because of his obsessive self-serving hatreds, blind ambition, lack of judgment, disinterest in the needs and interests of Canadians, and character flaws, Stephen Harper has given the Opposition parties--particularly the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff--the political weapons necessary to end his political life and cripple the Conservative Party, likely keeping it out of government for the next 11 to 12 years. But, who knows if the Michael Ignatieff is smart and courageous enough to seize the last opportunity he will have to be Prime Minister.

You really lack a sense of irony, don't you?

blueblood, the difference between Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights is covered in first year law school. Legally, the "Bill of Rights" was utterly ineffective. In fact, it was the uselessness of the Bill of Rights that made it necessary to put the Charter of Rights in the Constitution, both of which Trudeau championed, over the objections of conservatives. If you're going to discuss this further, please do me the courtesy of reviewing the law and case history around the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights. It wouldn't take you more than 5 or 10 minutes, the issues are that simple and fundamental.

The world doesn't give crap about anything that happens in Canada. Consequently your objection to my observation is, typically, specious. You never fail to disappoint b/c 2004. BTW, when Obama won the presidency I e-mailed the White House to thank George and Dick for making the Obama presidency possible. Had George and Dick run even a marginally successful administration, I doubt Obama would have won. But, of course, I digress from the topic.

... reaping the benefits if you're someone who just happens to respect fundamental human and political rights.

You clearly don't know your Canadian history. We already did "Obama"; his name was Trudeau, and the movement was called "Trudeaumania."

Are there no fools in the CPC? Harper comes to mind. He's put his party in the position of being at the mercy of the Opposition for no good reason. Seems to be almost a definition of a fool, wouldn't you agree?

I disagree for the reason that as Prime Minister, Ignatieff would have all the levers of power necessary to maintain party discipline and increase party support. Ignatieff can do much more as Prime Minister to control and rebuild the Liberal Party than he could as Opposition leader. Moreover, from a fundraising standpoint, a party in government can raise more money than a party in Opposition.

I find it interesting that while Harper's fate will be decided by Ignatieff after the budget, he's not acting as if an election is one of the options. He hasn't ordered his party to prepare for an election. I suspect in the 2 1/2 hours he spent with the Governor General he was told that if he doesn't regain the confidence of the House of Commons, the GG will ask the Liberals to try and form a government.

Trudeau is dead, Chretien as good as, at least politically. You need to judge the Liberals by the current leader and MPs. It's as silly to judge the Liberals by the Trudeau era as it is to judge the Conservatives by the Reform Party or the old Progressive Conservative Party. Times and people have changed.

My concern is Harper. Given his performance in Parliament and his abandonment on almost every principle he ever professed, I cannot trust him. Also, his policies seem entirely crafted, not to help Canadians, but to serve his ambitions. Lastly, until he was forced to ask the GG to prorogue Parliament by the Opposition parties, he was either in ignorant denial about the economic situation or a liar, perhaps both. In my view, Harper has shown he's not fit to govern. In my view, it would be the height of folly to see how the Tories might govern in a majority.

What concerns me about Harper--particularly after the fiscal update fiasco when he felt in a secure position--is what he would do with a majority. I think the fiscal update revealed to some extent the real Stephen Harper. As for Ignatieff, it is difficult to tell the difference between him and Harper. The greater problem is that there is no way to tell who these people truly are until they govern from a majority. In my view, being left of center and socially progressive, the Liberals are the less risky choice.

In my view, if Ignatieff will never be Prime Minister if fails to topple Harper at the end of January. If Ignatieff lets Harper live, and Harper can control his worst tendencies, he should be able to govern until the economy improves. If he does that, he can legitimately call an election three years from now, run on his record (if he keeps it centrist) and win on the rhetoric that he guided Canada through its worst period since the Great Depression. He'd also likely win a majority. Then we'll see who the real Stephen Harper is. If he wins a majority, he'll govern until perhaps 2016 at least. Ignatieff will be 69 in 2016, getting a little long in the tooth to run again. If, on the other hand, Ignatieff votes no confidence in Harper, he'll be the next Prime Minister and will govern until the economy improves, say three years from now. At which time, he'll claim credit for the improved times and likely win a majority. He'll govern to 2016 and beyond. The notion that somehow the Liberals can regroup and rebuild from the Opposition benches is silly. The notion that they will pick the timing of the next election from the Opposition benches is also silly. For the record, in my view the NDP and Jack Layton don't matter in this because only the Prime Minister matters in Canadian elections. As for the public's disapproval now of the Coalition, three years from now--if conditions improve--voters who have notoriously short political memories and even less interest in politics will not care, and will vote to stay the Liberal course, as they usually do. There are risks with whatever decision Ignatieff makes, but his safest course--the one where he has the greatest control over events and the fate of his opponent--is to defeat Harper, be Prime Minister for three years, then seek a mandate. Anything else is political suicide. Furthermore, if Ignatieff topples Harper, Harper will exit Canadian politics, and there is no one currently in the Conservative ranks who can hold the Conservative Party together.

Have the Liberals got their groove back? One wonders how Ignatieff and the Liberals would fare after serving for 2 1/2 to 3 years as the head of a coalition government.

I agree. If the Palestinians were as militarily well-endowed as Israel, peace would break out.

I wasn't confused how you were using the pronoun "they". As I say, however, the same applies to Israel, "that if they wish to attack, they have the priviledge of accepting the consquences."

You are aware, M.Dancer, that the pronoun "they" in your quote can refer equally to the Israelis and Palestinians.

Would you feel differently about Hamas's resistance against Israeli aggression if Iran or some other nation supplied the Palestinian with more sophisticated weapons so that the could target as Israel does? Israel, of course, owes its military superiority to American aid. Lastly, it's not possible to argue that "israeli response is more notably reactive" without denying or being unaware of the history and evolution of the Israel / Palestine conflict.

What if there are no IDF troops in Gaza or the West Bank, and Israel attacks with F-16s and Apache helicopters? What is "fair game" for Palestinian forces then? Are they allowed, in your world view, to attack targets inside Israel? If not, why not? And are they allowed, as Israel does, to incur civilian casualties without regard? For the record, the IDF is supplied by the United States, such that it is in effect an extension of the the American military. If the IDF "steam rolled them" as you so colorfully and casually put the horror, it's for this reason. If Israel had to raise and supply its own army, Israel would not exist, would not even have been able to displace the peoples of Palestine in '48. Israel is a colony of the United States and survives at the pleasure of Americans. The fact that, given the overwhelming military superiority Israel enjoys, Israel is unable to defeat either Hamas or Hezbollah, which is the stated goal, should worry it. To survive as a nation, Israel will have to do more than resort to force and oppression.

We seem to have at least one person, but not all it would seem, who allows that the Palestinians, like all peoples, have the right to self-defense. The corollary to that right is that what constitutes self-defense must be determined by the person or nation being attacked, not by the attacker. Do you not agree? Do the Israelis give the right to determine their self-defense to the Palestinians? No. Ought the Palestinians give their right of self-defense to the determination of the Israelis?

What has your question got to do with the topic? Do Palestinians, like Israelis, and indeed like every human being have the right of self-defense? Why is this such a difficult question to answer?

I'm posing a very simple question, do Palestinians have the right to self-defense? Why do you and Peter F have so much trouble answering a very simple question? Either, in your view, Palestinians, like all peoples according to international law, have a right to self-defense or they don't. It seems, in your view, they don't. If I'm not misstating your view, why don't they? Not withstanding current events, if you have any knowledge of history, even recent history, you know that the Palestinians have been more sinned against than sinned.

Are you saying that the Palestinians do not have the right of self-defense?

The prime argument justifying Israel's attack on Gaza is that Israel not only has a right but also an obligation to defend itself and its citizens. Do the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have similar rights and obligations? For the record, Israel has wreaked far more death and destruction (on the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories than they have on Israel. If the Palestinians have the same right of self-defense as Israel, how are any of the Palestinians or Hamas's actions against Israel worthy of censure in the present context and history of hostilities? If they don't have a right of self-defense like Israel, why don't they?