willy

If you take the wording of you poll and make any judgments with its finding, you have been drinking your own Kool-Aid too long. _____________________________________ All governments should review programs and spending every few years. Because something was a good idea at one time does not make it a good idea forever. Our world reality changes political, and technological. The Conservatives to provide good government should do a review of all programs and spending. Our government’s purpose should not be to grow or shrink. Our government’s purpose should not be to increase its outputs but to focus on the outcomes that will make this a better country. A great example would be spending, more does not fix anything. E.g.. Sponsorship program in Quebec. _____________________________________ The US is a valuable trading partner and giant elephant. We need to be diplomatic with our friends and make sure we work together. _____________________________________ Religion in government is a red haring. People of all faiths make up all parties in the house. They all have personal values that help them in formulating policy that is aimed at fixing the problems in this country.

Orchard belongs in the Green party. I remember back in the Charletown Accord days, Orchard was out speaking for the No side in BC. I was firmly at the time on the No side but after hearing his presentation he moved my vote to yes. I am very thankful we don't have to deal with him in the Conservatives anymore. If the Liberals want him and his anti free trade politics, take him.

What on earth are you talking about? Did the word homogenous confuse you? What exactly is crap about my statement? I firmly believe that pluralism and not secularism is a noble goal for a functioning society. Can you put a few words together to suggest why this is not so?

So how much time did you spend in school? You missed the logic class ehh.

Does that mean we don't have to pay taxes? If we have no representation, I don't want to have to pay taxes. If secular humanist is your religion, who is your invisible super hero. (an aside) Look, are the secular humanists so homogenous that they will not accept the varied people of this country, be them Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or many of the aboriginal faiths. Are you that much of an ideologue you can't handle a pluralistic society. We are all sure of our truths so the only way we can coexist is to respect that difference. Your kids don't need to go to religious schools, and people of all faiths pay taxes, when their are enough of us those dollars should go to schools that meet our needs as public schools meet yours. Dollars follow students and parents place the students. I am encouraged that we are still a democracy and I will crawl over broken glass to make sure I get my vote to prevent this intolerant line of thinking.

Scary look into the mind of the left. 1. Set a protocol based on the bright lights in government 2. Have midlevel paper pushers apply that protocol to every situation 3. Make sure that you protect people form themselves by making decisions based on broad generalities

And then as Canadians we will get what we deserve. Big brother do your worst.

So how many votes do you think you would get?

Excuse me but the Bloc voted against the budget. And this is as termed an NDP budget and only 16% voted for them. What is it the Liberals stand for this week? Oh ya what it takes to stay in power without a vote.

The money issue: In BC Catholic schools are private. The government subsidizes each student but as a total cost to the tax payer it is much less than if they were in public school. Every kid that goes to private schools then frees up money in the public school that gets more per student in funding.

Okay, fine I will answer. I think it is unthinkable that a family of faith would not be able to teach there children about that faith. As part of my faith I believe one is not whole without a relationship with God. The world is a place of pain and suffering and without God it is hopeless. I would prefer my children have a deep and profound faith to deal with the wrongs that will occur to them in their lives at any age. This is not unthinking but it is a parent’s responsibility to protect their children until they are mature enough to do so on their own. Because of my religious beliefs this protection extends to how I educate my children. It is your right as a parent to choose to do differently. As for you glib comment about typing in error. Your condescending approach to religious debate is something I rarely feel like taking part in. You can debate yourself if you wish to discuss the merits of my faith. I come to this forum to discuss federal politics. My reaction to this tread was one of surprise that views as extreme as removing religious institutions from Canadian society would be acceptable.

Here I will come to Belinda’s support. She is not a whore and I don't know if she is a slut. (Bill Clinton/no) She is unloyal, not that bright and self involved to a dangerous level. Good luck to the Liberals, they can have her.

Not going to bother, TTS. Lets just say, I believe in God and what I love about this country is that I am free to do so and to bring up my kids with that knowledge.

Talk about extremists. I hope the NDP comes out with some of this stuff, or even better the Liberals. The Conservatives will win in a landslide. This is a wedge issue of epic proportions. The day the state decides how to raise my kids, I will move. Stay away from my kids with your secular humanistic values.

They have done that on Abortion. I am happy with the party position on SSM and I don't see the Conservative stance as out of step with the majority of Canadians. It is out of step with the majority on this site (granted). Do you think this will be a wedge issue? The gay members of the Conservative party that I met in Montreal wanted the name but they were more interested in the rights and even more interested in the 1000's of other areas that the federal government effects our lives. The question is: Are you an 80% friend or 20% enemy. We will not from a coalition with the Liberals because the run from the left and govern by opportunism. Gain power for power sake. IMO we need a government with some basic principles that guide its direction and the people choose which one most closely resembles them. So are you as social democrat (NDP) or free enterpriser (Conservative). Both need to huge the middle and be broad based parties. At the end of the day they have to govern the people that didn't vote for them as well. (This is a moment of optomism)

Can you read Punjabi? The other stuff is posted.

Harper, good man. Still young and learning. I have seen growth in him over the last few years and at the convention he did a great job. He is handling the presure well and has more good than bad days. I think he is the right guy for the job and will continue to grow into it. Is that what you wanted to hear Shakeyhands?

Sparhawk, the next practical time to try and topple the Liberals wont be until fall. So the Conservatives have a few months of hard work ahead. If the Liberals win the bye election, the Conservatives will need the NDP to topple the government so the ball will be in there court. Conservatives continue to oppose the government as oppositions do. It is odd but all political strips would like to see a government that has the confidence of the electorate.

I guess we all choose what we want to believe.

This should be the new approach taken on the Liberal government. Seems to fit that they may be doing a magnitude of damage as can be shown with the growth in support for Quebec sovereignty, our environment is not improving, we are losing our place as a broker of peace in the world, we have a declining health care system and the trust in our democratic institutions has been shaken. Let them prove they didn't do it.

These words came from his PMO on a tape on Monday. This is Paul Martins PMO right. Hey I am not looking for criminal conviction right now, only an election so that we can resort some legitimacy to the PMO. Unfounded would mean no reason and we have plenty of reasons to suspect his knowledge of party practices. As for the dream up, I could not dream up the stuff coming out to Gomery. The scary thing is Gomery is only looking into this one file. Every time Sheila Fraser reports we hear the words "questionable practices". Where is all the money in going. To steal a line from the left, in this instance we should use the precautionary principle. They should have to prove they are not harming and not the other way around.

Have you ever heard of the term "bounded rationality". It was first used to describe how we as individuals can not think outside of our own experiences. Thus to make better decisions we need to seek a broad range of views at the same time recognize our limitations. With the advent of specialty channels, market segmentation and web communities a new phenomenon can occur. One can choose to fill their mind with a very narrow view of the world thus distorting the common reality. The community communicates mostly internally, reinforces common beliefs and building a common sense of identity that is strong. To the community it is very clear that other just don't understand. They must not be as enlightened. In the seventies, groups like the Moonies developed under a common sequence. As for the "Corporation" I saw a screening with the director who referred to his own work as art. The intent of the film was not to be balance but to stir thoughts and discussion. Which it did but it was far from a metaphysical reality.

Okay what you need is a third party to do the deal and we must not talk about details so you can say truthfully you didn't know. Do these words ring a bell from this week? Fist off social conservatives should be welcome in the party as they should be in the NDP and the Liberals. Tommy Douglas was a social conservative and he made great changes to this country. The larger point is that the party is and needs to be broader than the social conservatives. Caring for poor people and the environment are part of social conservatism. Think about it. As for the economic implications of a conservative government, they have been very conservative in platform. Your comment is ridiculous in the light of what the Liberal government has been spending in the last month. If they stay in power until the end of the year they will spend us into massive deficit, even in a time when the interest rates are low.

Fear mongering in the last election. (Liberal lies) Conservatives will buy air craft carriers They will ban abortions Quebec will separate because Conservatives are not popular there They will privatize health care The country will spilt because they will give provinces to much power The evil corporations will get big tax cuts They will get rid of all arts programs Economic development programs will be cut ECT......................... Liberals have this down to an art, including the fake outrage when something is claimed of them. I heard a Liberal commentator explain how this can be yesterday on the CBC. The Liberal party is very good at adapting. So when the polls change or the decision gets tough they adapt. Note the GST, Young offender act, SSM ect.. How about the whole 93 red book. They don't adapt they lie and they are very good at it. Martin not a good as Jean. As was show in the press gallery last week when he was talking with a straight face the press gallery was in stitches. This is not good for our democracy and Liberals should not through rocks in glass houses. Our country is in danger, if this government is not taken to task.

Belinda was and is like a puppet on stings. She has a team of pr advisors and strategists that design her few lines that she then repeats regardless of questions asked. The first time I heard her speak it was embarrassing. I brought a number of friends out to a Vancouver bar to show off the party and gain their interest. Belinda was 2 hours late and then had the most pathetic 60 second speech I have ever heard. "Big pie, big economy, need your support for the big pie." I spent the rest of the night apologizing for wasting peoples time. She has no substance but she was useful to the party as she was to her backers because she was a symbol, representative. (the Liberals are using her as a symbol as well and it will hurt them soon enough) Hopefully soon we have a new symbol that can also walk the walk for fiscal conservatives and socially liberal people in the party. In a two party state, parties are always coalitions and it is time for some Liberals to cross the floor to a party that better reflects their views. Harper has always had time for her politics, but many in the party were concerned with her competency as I am sure he was.