Barts

The fact is that the Liberals, the NDP, and the BQ have lost faith in Harper, in particular, and the Conservatives in general. To support Harper's January 27th budget no matter what it contained would be for political expedience only. The Opposition parties also know--or should know--that if Harper ever forms a majority, he will manipulate the Election Act and the political party funding regime so that the current Opposition parties can never raise the campaign funds necessary to challenge the Conservatives dollar for dollar prior to and during an election. Harper wants nothing less than the obliteration of the Liberal Party. They also know--or should know--that if Harper forms a majority he will gerrymander the seat allocations in Parliament to unfairly favor the areas of the country where the Conservatives enjoy majority support, even if populations levels don't justify the allocation. Harper is interested in Harper ruling, not democracy or rep by pop. Politically, the fact is that supporting Harper will, for the Opposition parties, be an act of suicide. If Ignatieff supports the Harper budget on January 27, he personally and the Liberal Party deserves the dire political consequences they will suffer. Unfortunately, Canada doesn't deserve them. It deserves better.

So, the argument of the gang above appears to be that if Ignatieff becomes PM at the head of a coalition (something Harper not only would do but hoped to do when Martin was PM), and governs for 2 1/2 years, the Canadian "public" will punish him in the next election because he was part of the coalition. In keeping with the tone of the gang above's posts, that's delusional, and shows an appalling ignorance of how seriously, in fact, Canadians take their politics--not very seriously at all. In 2 1/2 years, or perhaps longer, the economy will likely be in recovery (as it always does), Ignatieff will take credit (as will the coalition partners) and the voters will return the people who led them through the worst economic crisis since the Depression. As for Harper, who will be long gone, the question will be "Harper who?". If Ignatieff, does not act as PM for the next 2 1/2 years, Harper will take credit when the economy turns; and who do you think will get elected with a majority? Stephen. That's why if Harper was in Ignatieff's position today, he'd do everything to be PM. Hey, "gang above" do you guys have a clue of what it means to have power? Everything. And to not have power? Nothing.

... if he was in Michael Ignatieff's political position? After the Conservatives table their stimulus budget (forced on them by the coalition threat) at the end of January, Michael Ignatieff will have to choose between bringing down Harper or supporting Harper. If Harper was in Ignatieff's position, what would he do? He would topple his opponent. Serve as Prime Minister for 2 1/2 years as promised, or if the timing suited call an election before that time. As PM, he'd do all he could to raise money and demonize his main opponent. Harper has never let an opportunity pass that would increase his personal power or weaken his opponents pass, even if--as we saw in November--it is completely unnecessary and harmful to the notion of a stable minority government or pits Canadians against each other. Does anyone really think that Harper would pass on being given an opportunity to be Prime Minister, even if it meant forming a coalition with Bloc support? Harper has shown he's happy to make common cause with anyone, abandon any principle, and betray any person if it means being Prime Minister. Why should Ignatieff do anything less than act like Harper? If Ignatieff chooses the political strategy and tactics that Harper would, he'll be PM for at least 18 months, and likely 2 1/2 years. The Liberals will have filled their political war chests. Harper will have quit, as he always does in circumstances like this. And, 2 1/2 years from now, everyone except the extremist Reform wing of the Conservative Party will have forgotten how Ignatieff became Prime Minister. After governing from the center for 2 1/2 years the Liberals under Ignatieff will win a majority. Moreover, the Conservatives will be out of power for a decade, at least, until the Liberals, once again, implode. If Ignatieff will do at the end of January what Harper would do, the Liberals will return to power and the Conservative/Harper reign will end.

ACORN is NOT involved in massive voter fraud, but rather registration irregularities which are being investigated. Most of the irregularities were reported to the authorities by ACORN itself. Voter fraud does not occur until someone, Mickey Mouse perhaps, tries to vote illegally.

Here's what I know for sure, less than 72 hours before the polls open. Stephen Harper is a known liar. A list is not necessary but the most recent revelation is his lie about the Cadman tape being doctored. Stephane Dion, so far as I know, hasn't lied about anything. That doesn't mean a Dion lie won't surface at some point. As of now, I don't trust a word Harper says, based on his past performance. So, I'll take my chances on Dion, and give him the benefit of the doubt until he demonstrates, like Harper, that he can 't be trusted. Now, as for the Green Shift making costs go up, that's a crock, if the Green Shift is revenue neutral. A company's taxes stay the same, but are shifted from a tax on its profits to a tax on the energy it uses. Conserve energy and save on taxes. Same math happens for ordinary citizens.

Oops! You mean the Conservatives were lying about the tape being altered? Gee, what are we to think now?

Politically it's a long, long way to 14 October. Nevertheless, methinks you're in for a big, big disappointment.

Yet, every western democracy does this. It's called a progressive tax system. Redistribution insures a large middle class and few poor people which always produces a more stable, economically viable country. Your assertion is demonstrably nonsense. The evidence is the countries of the EU. When money is not taken from the rich and given to the poor--to use your extremist characterization--the result is an oligarchy or military dictatorship, and rampant poverty, national instability and often a popular, bloody uprising.

Don't be an ass. University professor, cabinet minister, lawyer, municipal counselor, non-profit organization director are all "real jobs." This Right Wing canard about "real jobs" is just plain silly. BTW, Stephen Harper was once the President of the extreme right wing National Citizens Coalition, a non-profit advocacy group like May's Sierra Club of Canada, and I consider the work he did there a real job, too. You know sometimes Right Wing-nuts say some really dumb things.

McCain did this; Obama did that! Please! Let' get real. McCain has proven himself to be inept and grossly misinformed. No question whenever another of McCain's regular screw ups is reported, the anti-Obama crowd will counter. The fact is, however, that apart from the Konservative Kool-Aid drinkers, it is generally accepted that McCain has deep competency, memory, and ethical deficiencies.

Communist is probably a mischaracterization. However, it is very clear that the US financial sector, at least, is in a socialist arrangement with government. To suggest otherwise is delusional. Ironically, for the sake of the Great American Capitalist Myth it is good that the government is there to provide the social safety net for Big Finance. If it did not do so, America -- lock, stock, and barrel -- would wind up being owned by nationals of other countries.

Does the premise of a left of centre coalition party entail anything that the Canadian federal right wing parties--Reform and Progressive Conservatives--have not done? Did they not restrict the choices of right wing adherents? As this seemed to allow them to gain political power, why should the left of centre parties not do the same?

The Canadian conservatives were only able to form a government after the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party united. The Liberals, under Chretien, maintained majorities because the "right" was split between two parties. Is it time now for the "left" to form one party to regain power? If the Liberals and New Democratic Party formed a new party, perhaps the Liberal Democratic Party, would that unification of the left mean a return to power for left of centre, progressive government? Perhaps the Greens would participate, but apart from the environmental polices they tend toward small "c" conservative policies.

No. We're talking about McCain's alleged treatment at the hands of the Vietnamese. But I do think a thread that compares Vietnamese and United States treatment of prisoners would be interesting and informative. What would be really interesting would the treatment of Vietnamese prisoners by the U.S.. You know the ears as trophy thing, throwing people out of helicopters. You know that stuff.

Can you remind me which section of the Code of Conduct, "removes the disability" mentioned in Section III of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Maybe Congress passed the necessary resolutions mentioned. Do you know?

So if you're a good automobile driver, McCain is too?

I have no idea, but I don't think I started the diversion.

After you've answered my questions, I'll respond to yours. Until then I'll assume you don't have any answers worthy of name.

Why do you believe a proven liar like McCain? He's even been caught in lies about his military record, which as you know he won't release for voters' scrutiny. As for your notion that "The information that McCain gave under duress, by the time they gave it was virtually worthless and the statement he signed not worth the paper it was written on", are you so sure? If so why? "According to retired Army Colonel Earl Hopper, McCain divulged classified information North Vietnam used to hone their air defense system, including “the package routes, which were routes used to bomb North Vietnam. He gave in detail the altitude they were flying, the direction, if they made a turn … he gave them what primary targets the United States was interested in.” As result, Hopper claims, the U.S. lost 60 per cent more aircraft, and in 1968 “called off the bombing of North Vietnam, because of the information McCain had given to them.” [source: John McCain: Privileged 'War Hero', Liar, Colloborator, Traitor Part 1]

Did you read even the first sentence of the Abu Ghraib information I posted. Apparently not. Either that or you don't understand the meaning of the word "homicide". Clearly, White Doors, there's little point in providing you with the facts.

What legal precedents are you relying on to argue my point is moot? Why does it have no substance? Is this your informed or uniformed opinion? Is McCain exempt from the provisions of the U.S. Constitution?

Those are the facts. Read McCain's own accounts of his alleged torture. Read the reports of Abu Ghraib. Compare the two. Bear mind, too, that while we have facts and pictures of Abu Ghraib, we only have McCain's story about his POW experience. He won't release his military records which includes his POW debrief. You don't have to take me seriously, but you might want to consider taking the facts seriously. Here's McCain's story: John McCain's account of Viet Cong torture. Here's Abu Ghraib: Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse.

John McCain, "Songbird" as the Vietnamese called him, collaborated with enemy to such an extent that under the U.S. Constitution's 14th amendment, he's probably prohibited from being the President. Section III of the 14th Amendment states, “Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. ” By his own admission, McCain gave aid to the Vietnamese. That fact is not in dispute. So unless McCain gets a 2/3 majority of both Senate and the House of Representatives to "remove such disability", he can't serve as a President. Perhaps he can claim he acted under duress of torture. But the "torture" he alleges to have received does not rise to the level of torture under current US law, laws McCain supports.

Well, that's McCain's story isn't it? And we know he's a liar. Have you seen the footage of his release? Looks pretty good, wouldn't you say? Even lifts his arm above his shoulder to salute. The problem is that McCain is afraid to release his military records which include his POW debriefing. We, in fact, don't know the truth about McCain's time as a POW. All we know is the stories he tells. And, as I say, we know McCain's a liar.

In the interests of accuracy, the Viet Cong did not break McCain's arms. He broke his arms ejecting from his plane.