Fortunata

Tsk, tsk, such a temper Michael Bluth. If I raise this much ire in you you better put me on ignore like I have jgb on ignore. That's why his posts, if they are ever directed to me, don't get answered.

You`re right, but only when they are forced to think of consumer safety because of consumer demand. Or regulated safety standards by government because of consumer advocate groups. Very little is done voluntarily because it`s the right thing to do if it affects profitability. That`s not to say it`s ALL manufacturers (I shouldn`t have blanketed the whole industry) but if you look back at history, it`s most of them. How many times have companies known about the problem and not taken the product off the market until forced to do so, just like Firestone.

LOL, sure. Convenient excuse when you don`t have a rebuttal. You know I`m right. And you do get what you give in life. Like I said you can be a follower or you can be a questioner. I prefer not to follow. And it is interesting that it`s only no respect given to your man that bothers you. So transparent. PS RB, don`t forget that the first time your man ran for a seat he called himself Steve, not the pretentious Stephen.

If it were anyone else, you would be asking the same question. It`s just because he`s your man that you don`t. It`s a legitimate concern.

lol, right on. If Paul Martin was known as Mr. Dithers then Steve Harper should be known as Mr. Turncoat. Risking the ever-offered, repetitive and tired mantra of "scary, scary, scary" from one follower here, with Steve you just never know what will happen. Will he revert to his so called principled political beliefs before he was PM or will be prostitute those principles for more seats? Hmmmmmm.

There are no guarantees in life whether they be products from China, Fuji or here in North America. Manufacturers (and suppliers) first think of the bottom line and most often the consumer's safety is last on the list. Big business fights for their product rightly or wrongly before thinking safety (tires, tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies). LG sold a refrigerator that had a defect causing fires; people's homes burned down and the potential for injury or death was very real but caused no hysteria. It's consumer beware for any and all products; governments may step in due to consumer pressure or other political reasons. Our government's track record for safe products is dismal and, is seemingly, most always in hind-sight if there is a furor.

You fail to address the fundamentals of the post in your attempt to discredit me. At no time did I bitch and moan about the number of women (or left handed lesbians) in cabinet. As for the Liberal whiners, the Steve supporters at all costs can always justify "...but the Liberals" even when used as a deflection or justification for poor performance. Some of this is just plain hilarious coming from you. Share my political views? Hahaha - you are the one that attacks anyone who doesn't blindly follow the Steve party whether they act like a Steve party or a Liberal party. As far as disrespect as you say - "meh". You can be a follower or you can question. I'd rather question. Part of my post questions the intelligence of Bev Oda. Neither of you addressed that, choosing to deflect by attacking me instead. Am I to believe by this that you both think Bev Oda is very intelligent and deserves to be in cabinet above others in the "new" government? Is she the best they can do? And, by your silence on my comment about cabinet ministers not really having the freedom to deal with their portfolios, is that an admission that they do not? Or do you suggest that they have the authority to deal with and speak to issues within those departments without running it past the head man? Some posters are just here to stir things up without dealing specifically with issues other posters bring up.

Anyone can get an education if they have the money, and some, even if they don't have. Her resume isn't that impressive given her age. As far as being elected twice, it shows how smart the voting public is I guess.

Another thread that involves the "new" government co-opted by the "but the Liberals" whiners. A cabinet shuffle by the Cons is nothing to do with the Libs or the NDP. Their comments are immaterial. Comments that would be pertinent, however, weren't made as Harper doesn't allow his minions to speak freely, be they Ministers or not. Ho hum, I guess this whole shuffle is then immaterial because it is not they who run their portfolios or make decisions; it is Steve. The one appointed Minister that is laughable is Bev Oda. She doesn't appear to be smart enough to be elected let alone be in cabinet. Of all the women that were elected for the Cons, she got appointed?? She can't carry a message let alone the already-prepared controlled script sent out by the Steve capos. What a great female representative (or even more telling - a Con representative).

Who parrots the party line betsy? It surely isn't me since I don't believe in any of the mainstream parties. Hmmmmmmm, who could that leave? Why it's you!! Surprise, surprise.

The truth is that the average Canadian doesn't care two hoots about what is happening in the USA. They may be aware of what is going on there but it is not a topic around the breakfast table. jbg continually harps on the anti-Americanism here, a comment or a few over the course of years by government officials (that nobody even pays attention to) seems to play awful big in his mind yet ignoring the fact that we get lambasted by USA officials continually but that doesn't seem to get his attention. So it seems ok for his country but not ok for this country. Double standard, hypocrisy - call it whatever but he seems to be pretty preoccupied by it.

McKay should stay with Steve; no-one will trust him again not to sell out. I hope another PC party rises from the dust; a progressive unifying party that hasn't been a proponent of doing away with Health Care, that wants to keep Canada as one country instead of federations; who you are not afraid that they will hop on the next war that the USA creates because they are "threatened". A party that really believes in fiscal responsibility and working for the people instead of the next election, that will not pander to Quebec for the votes, who does not count ridings to get to sleep. I hate the fact that people call the Steve party Tories because they are not.

No, I have this problem about being a sheep. Seems you don't mind.

This person should get out more. The USA has been one of the most innovative countries in the world and not just for grief and war. A generalization like this invalidates much of her position.

I'd say the Cons, if not as good, are learning fast in the lying department. Baird's "we believe in Kyoto" as they slashed and burned all the Liberal programs then brought them back as their own. Oooops, there goes your "They have their own ideas" bs. They have everybody else's ideas as well as a few half baked ones of their own. You really need to be a smidgeon more objective.

Then bring them home....if you can (heavy airlift?). The "other nations" have them because they didn't balance budgets on the backs of their armed forces. What is it about aircraft in particular that vexes Canada so, especially helos? Bell Canada makes parts for American choppers, so industrial base is not the question. Please, no Avro Arrow flashbacks. Maybe the budget neglect was purposeful in an effort to hobble Canadian participation in such "peacemaking" conflicts. Somebody forgot to tell the troops, because they still do an outstanding job despite the shortfalls and lack of support. Doesn't matter WHY we don't have all the necessary equipment; the bottom line is we don't and IF the USA wants continued support then they can damn well reciprocate. All this happened because of an attack on the USA (and I don't want to hear that it was really an attack on Western culture, etc.) and we are there in support of that attack. So we're over there fighting and dying and all you can think about is that we shouldn't get support because? And airlift?... I'm sure we won't have trouble getting our people and equipment back home if we need to.

Small man big font syndrome?

Yep, if it's not important enough to support our troops deployed on a mission of the USA's initiation then they should do it themselves.

It all depends on their, but most Conservative staffers are not allowed or strongly encouraged not to post on message boards. Does a minister want to be answering questions about what a junior staffer posted on MLW? A bad news story? Something like having a manual to disrupt Parliament? Locking someone in a room? Oh no the Cons wouldn't do anything unethical in case it could turn out to be a "bad news story." And how do you know they are "not allowed" or "strong encouraged not to" post? And yes, you are an advertisement, not a great one, but one none-the-less.

Bill Graham is gay? For true?

No, that's where you are wrong. I know people that do not support the mission but do support Harper for the large part. One doesn't support the mission because it costs too much. Another doesn't support the mission because they think it feeds into Iraq. Yet another doesn't support the mission because he's a pacifist and he thinks less wars and more peacekeeping is the way to go. There you go, there are many reasons for not supporting Canada being in Afghanistan (edited to correct). And yet you (we?) yahoos on here make it a partisan issue. When it doesn't have to be and shouldn't be. This isn't directed at me but what does that mean? Wearing red on Fridays? Writing letters to our troops in Afghanistan? Donating to local charities that send stuff to them? Donating to local charities that donate items to Afghanistani children? Praying for them all? Believing that they do the very best they can for each other and the people they are there to protect? Every person has their own way of support, whether it be your way or not. Or does it just have to be your way before you believe them?

Explain to me how you can increase the troops morale in afghanistan, who are risking their lives for us btw, by saying that mission they are on is 'not worth it'. You explain to me how you can not support this mission and increase the troops morale? If you don;t support this mission which is UN mandated, what mission could you support? Why don't you support this mission? The troop morale can be increased by knowing people know they are doing what they are being told to do by their political masters and they are doing a damn good job of a damn hard mission. It can be separated and those who don't see that it can be don't want to. It's as simple as that. Those that support the troops but don't want them in the combat role they find themselves in now can do so for many reasons; they want no Canadians dying for a historically impossible mission; that they see the government getting more and more corrupt and see human rights abuses continuing as per Sharia (and other) laws. There are many reasons they don't want to have our soldiers dying for. The least a person could do is make an honest effort to understand the other's viewpoint on this issue. To continually bash those who don't agree with you and parrot the bullshit that Harper and his minions spew is too much when our soldiers are dying there. As far as my personal agreement or disagreement goes, I do happen to agree with this mission AND I do support our troops. I support both NOT BECAUSE of political partisanship unlike others here. I think it is the right thing to do although I am doubtful of the ultimate success there; not because I don't think our soldiers can't make a difference but because, historically, it has never been successful. The culture is so different and you have to ask yourself, do the people really want to change. Islam is not like other religions inasmuch as it is lived at every aspect of their daily lives. How many generations would it take to change that even if they actually do want to change that. So, if I, who supports our troops doing what they are doing, can see other's viewpoint I'm sure even those hard nosed opponents of everything non-Harper could.

Let's just get over the "if you don't support the mission you don't support the troops" BS. It is not necessarily true, it is possible to do both and those of you who use that argument is doing as much to destroy troop morale as those who do not support either the mission or the troops. Why try to be so dishonest about things?

Not the Cons! They'd never do anything dirty. 1. You didn't have to, it's well known 2. I accept 3. I didn't take offense at all; I know how you work. Ta ta. And now back to the feature presentation....

Not at all. At first I thought popcorn but more adults watch car racing than kids (I think) so probably more adults would prefer a beverage than popcorn .... aha, beer. Beer - sports, sports - beer. You see how that thought process worked? Pretty innocent really. You like to think the worst of anyone who doesn't share your political viewpoint.