Sir Bandelot

Well it did once upon a time. Now the link displays a different article. But, I searched using the title that I copied, "Mousavi rally draws tens of thousands in Tehran" and found other sites that still have this article. The sites show the source as Reuters. http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5654465...ands-in-tehran/ Same article, exact same quote. I don't know how they polled for the info in Iran. But I suppose Iran does allow visitiors into their country, at least to some extent. The fact that the news article was pulled, or changed for some reason is a little suspicious...

"In Washington, U.S. pollsters said a survey they had taken three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a 2-to-1 ratio, greater than the declared election results. The poll showed his victory might reflect the will of the people and not widespread fraud, pollsters Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty said in a column in the Washington Post." http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSEVA14340720090615 You have to dig deep to find the info, as the articles headline is "Mousavi rally draws tens of thousands in Tehran". Amazing, the hype and propaganda. But if this little snippet is true, it means that there wasn't a problem, but these people who protested and immediately became violent, they are the problem. If so they deserve to be dealt with accordingly, as any civilized country must do.

Stellarium is also very good, and free. www.stellarium.org

WHat are they going on about? Why this need to get tougher on crime, when I've been hearing that the crime rates are dropping every year, for several years in a row? Canada's crime rate drops for 3rd straight year: StatsCan "StatsCan data released Thursday shows a seven per cent drop in the national crime rate, which the agency said also stems from fewer serious violent offences like homicides, attempted murders, sexual assaults and robberies." Maybe they need to keep the jails full, so now they go for the soft criminals? These guys are nuts. Get your priorities straight

Awesome. I'm a bit of a backyard Galileo myself.

After the propaganda dies down a little we have the chance to read between the lines, try to determine whats going on. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31351572/ns/wo...ideastn_africa/ Sunday June 14- Ahmadinejad insists the results showing his landslide victory are fair and legitimate. Along Tehran's Vali Asr street tens of thousands marched in support of Ahmadinejad, waving Iranian flags and shouting his name. Let the people vote for the leader they want. But violent protest, destruction of property does not help the cause of Mr. Mousavi. There are indications that he encouraged the violence with his inflammatory remarks. In some democratic countries he and his party would now be arrested.

Who knows whats really going on? First the media said Achmadenijad would lose, he doesn't have the support of the clerics. Then when he wins they say, its because he has the support of the clerics. Too bad for them, I remember. I have a memory.

Game on! I hope you are watching

I did not see her performance but I saw a picture of her frowning sadly on the Yahoo news site. So she turned on the tears, eh... how pathetic can you get? Bad girl! Time to cry, then we'll all feel sorry for you. Man, Harper must think that the Canadian public is real stupid. I bet he's laughing his ass off right now. Chances are, he's right

So you would rather vote for one of the others, the very same ones who just gave themselves the right to take money, without accountability, in secret meetings... because they know that the public would be against it. We can see under what circumstances they are willing to agree with each other- when it comes to ripping us off. You can believe in them, if it makes you feel good. I do not have such "faith" in these rich peoples kids. Nor will I put my name behind them, they are liars one and all. I'll tell you what the bigger joke is- arguing about some twits comments, while the bigger issues, theft right from our pockets in billion dollar bailouts, meetings behind closed doors- go unnoticed, without criticism.

My scope has a very clear definition- the criminals who are in our government. When I say they are opportunists, I am talking about Raitt. When I say they have no decency, I'm talking about Bairds profanity. But in no way do I have faith in any of the others. Yes, I have been disillusioned. You can go on voting as is your choice, but if you think theres an alternative, I say you've been fooled again.

What we have here, as her comments clearly prove is a gang of opportunists. They do not work in the public service to actually serve the people, but use any situation to further their own careers and personal power. They have absolutely no decency, as can be heard in the coarseness of their utterings, and snarls on their faces when confronted by it. Shame on them, and any of you who are still fooled. And same goes for Ignatieff. Same goes for Layton. Theres nothing more disgusting than a politician seeking the favor of the public, playing Mr. Goodbar, until they actually do get in office. If it looks like sh*t and smells like sh*t, you can guess what it is. Damn them

Yeah but she is kinda good looking, right? So lets give her a job, we like to have beautiful people around us... Thats the sham of democracy- good looking people get elected by hordes of mindless media thralls.

Accountability, my eye. When will Canadians finally say, enough of these charlatans and rogues? It's the death of representative democracy. They can accept payments from anybody, even other parties, to vote for or against issues in the house. They don't need to reveal these "gifts" to their constituents, or even vote the way the people in their riding want. Whoever has the bucks, can buy these politicians.

Sounds good to me.

You have miss the point entirely. I don't deny that you're correct in one sense... I have not even made the attempt. The reason is that I don't care. I don't want to try to prove it. Therefore, I have not failed. As I said before, it does not matter to me whether they are guided by certain beliefs or not. Voting statistics do show that religious conservatives generally support these issues. I say "religious", not only christian... it can be seen in other groups. We can argue on and on about why that is, but it doesn't matter to me why. My criticism of the CPC party is on those points that I listed. My statement that there is no rational alternative for true conservatives in this country, I mean the political, economic, environmental conservative, still stands. What we have today is a right-wing party. That is not necessarily synonymous with conservatism.

Insults mean nothing, other than demonstrating that you have a problem. And flat denials without citing any proof, doesn't count for much in a debate. At least provide a link to some evidence for your statements, or better yet a quote from Stephen Harper where he says that he does not believe in mixing his personal religious ideology with his political work. In light of the many accusations and SOME real evidence that they (the CPC) try to do this. Are we just intent on filling this space with something, anything when we have nothing useful to say? No wonder the OP thinks that the discussion of politics here is boring. For me it's not a problem that they go to church, or that they believe in something. If thats the case, why hide it? Just admit that this is what you are, to hell with political correctness. Convince the people with arguments, face the consequences of your beliefs. Unless of course someone truly is a nutcase that would shock the conscience of the public, which I believe Stockwell Day is on the verge of being. Besides their religious grass roots there are still a number of things that this party seems to believe in that I and many other conservative Canadians simply do not. I listed those in my mini rant, which I repeated after Shady said similar things about the US Republican party. I truly believe that this CPC party is the Canadian GOP-light. I base that on these observations alone- their lack of interest in environmentalism, their desire for mandatory minimum sentencing, dislike of gun registrations and a negative view towards equalty and womens rights, opposition to social economic policies, support of lassiez faire capitalism. All doomed to failure... and that is what they are really hiding. I can back those up with links if necessary, but I shouldn't have to. By now it is quite self-evident

If you expect me to defend the liberals somehow, you will wait a long time. But we were talking about how what we have today is not a conservative party that the majority of Canadians can relate to, but is rather the party of the religious right. From the same article you linked- "The old Reform Party, the forerunner to the Conservative Party of Canada, was in part built on the back of social conservatives in the West, most of whom were motivated by their Christian beliefs. But once the Reform Party tried to break out of the West, it found that the conservative religious element was holding the party back from making electoral gains. During the 2008 election, nary a peep was heard from the religious right -- a deliberate strategy. The social conservatives have been told to be careful. If you speak too loudly you're going to cause us to lose elections," said Link Byfield, a writer and former editor of Alberta Report." So in other words, they know this. Canadians would not like to hear the preachy horseshit of these Albertan evangelists. Its essential for them to hide their identity, at least until they can get a majority.

"There is a hole in Canadian politics that todays puritanical and naive "conservatives" can't fill. The real conservatives have gone away. The average Canadian is not a bible thumping, woman hating, racist, war lover (from a distance!), U.S. ass-licker that hates the environment. They simply cannot relate to the CPC." http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=428038 You are joking now, right? I mean, how can you see it clearly in the US but not see it in Canada? Harper gave a speech to an extreme right wing group, the U.S. Council on National Policy. When elected, they were dancing around on the anti-abortion hot potato.. their endorsement of mandatory minimums, their hatred for the gun registry, the bigoted views of various members. Sounds much the same to me. Harper is an evangelist. His father was a pastor. Preston Manning... aka "The Rev." Stockwell Day... say no more

The right wingers in USA had 8 years to prove something, look what it brought them: economic devastation. No one else did this to them, they did it all by themselves. Through greed, they imploded. Capitalism has had its chance full and well, now its time for some good old socialismo to step in. Better brush up on yer nazi economics 101! Now, I aint no fan of Obama, or anyone else in politics today. I admire the strong leadership of Bush, but with the intelligence of an Obama. Without both you've got either a stubborn dangerous jackass or what amounts to just a fancy talker no action. It's hard to find someone who has both clout and wisdom, and the charisma to lead people. Such a person was last seen to some extent in previous leaders like Jean Chretien and Bill Clinton... both liberals. Not saying they were prefect but they left the country in a better condition than when they started with it. I'm trying to think of an inspiring leader who was a conservative, in either Canada or USA.

How long have you been on these forums??

Actually I appreciate it when others do disagree with me, and have an important point to make. Still waiting for such a thing to be posted by you. Speaking from personal experience? Did she make you want to climb the ropes in gym class?

If it is, it's because the "right" have been intellectually annihilated. But I would blame it on the fact that there is no rational right wing alternative. There is a hole in Canadian politics that todays puritanical and naive "conservatives" can't fill. The real conservatives have gone away. The average Canadian is not a bible thumping, woman hating, racist, war lover (from a distance!), U.S. ass-licker that hates the environment. They simply cannot relate to the CPC.

Liberalism is a better word. One can still be a progressive conservative. Well, it use to be possible once upon a time!

Yes you do have that freedom, just as others have the freedom to judge you on it, and call you a "hater". What else does it mean, to not like something, and to be intolerant towards it?I can't think of another word for it, and if you can't accept it then maybe its you who has issues. Maybe, you really do like 'em, a lot So I don't think you need desensitivity training... you need self-acceptance training. The fact is you dislike gays... thats what you are. Says so right there in your post.