Fortunata

Rick Mercer has fun with all politicians and all political issues. He calls the government on everything no matter who is in government; he was especially hard on Martin. Last night he was right on even though some of you don't like the Steve government coming under scrutiny.

Intelligence is a good show. CBC's Dragon Boys was even better. I also liked This is Wonderland, it was the funniest dam thing especially the first season. Don't forget the Da Vinci shows. Even CBC can have good Canadian made shows, despite the fact that it is CBC.

Just for the sake of discussion I wonder what is the difference of how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam and then since Saddam. As far as Iraqis killing Iraqis this wouldn't be happening without the invasion by Bush. I don't see how you can decry responsibility for these deaths. I don't see how you can decry holding Saddam responsible for the crimes he commited. He wasn't about to be served wtih a warrant and surrender peacefully. Nice deflection. Can you point out where I said Saddam shouldn't be held responsible? Where is your outcry about the deaths Bush is responsible for?

More bushwacking. More war on terror just like Iraq was. More deaths and destruction for the Bush political agenda, softening up the American public for the big announcement of the "surge". Surge would have been good about the time he was on the good ship lollipop saying mission accomplished. This guy is a dangerous wackjob.

Just for the sake of discussion I wonder what is the difference of how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam and then since Saddam. As far as Iraqis killing Iraqis this wouldn't be happening without the invasion by Bush. I don't see how you can decry responsibility for these deaths.

I thought the acting or directing or production (something) was amateurish like most Canadian productions. I did like the script though, for the most part.

Canuck E Stan and Geoffrey Boy are you guys gullible. You believe what comes out of a known anti-CBC's, anti-anything-but-Conservative and take it as god abiding truth? Bwahahahahahaha. You two see the worst and believe the worst because you want to. Talk about being brainwashed. Didn't anyone ever tell you that if you look for something you find it, even if it isn't there. Man you guys are funny.

Come on Fortunata. Who has made that *suggestion*? When you look at things beyond recycling. Look at making homes energry efficient or driving hybrid vehicles. Those are the type of things out of reach of the poorer family. Your fellow conservative MikeDavid has made that suggestion over and over. Let's look beyond recycling. Poor families don't own houses and poor families don't drive cars. When they can afford either, yes, they are poorer quality, however, that doesn't mean that they are not interested in their children and grandchildren having a quality of life made better by a clean environment. Most people (or at least many people) aren't so intent on self that they are at least not aware of what is going on around them or wanting something better whether or not they can actively participate at the present time. By the way, I am not poor and I don't own a hybrid vehicle. Do you? How many people do you know own these?

Army Guy: I do support it. See, just as I said, if you add one bit of anything that isn't rah, rah, rah, you get accused of not supporting, etc. As for the rest about winning? Well we'll see. Nobody in either the former Liberal government or the Steve government has said what winning means. In my opinion this is so they can say we've won no matter what the actual expectations were and what the reality on ground is at that time. So, we can declare ourselves the winner no matter the situation. As for the rest of it, yes we know what we see on tv. I also have heard from NGO's and others that we are winning the same as the US is winning in Iraq. We win the battles. I do not think WE will win it. I think the Afghans will win it if they want to and if it is to be won.

Khan, a provincial Conservative and a federal Liberal? Or did he run as a Liberal because the Liberals have traditionally won that riding and he knew he couldn't get elected as a Conservative, knowing full well that he could swap parties and, in fact, that is why he offered his services to Harper to start with. Could be just as easily as any other scenario.

I think we should face reality. Yes, Afghanistan is just and honourable but unwinnable as we citizens think of winning. We will never be able to convince factions that we should be there; that they should not fight against the occupier or that "our" way is their best way. The best that we can do is train enough Afghanis (and if they're not corrupt that would be nice) to go in where the government needs them to be. Pakistan is breeding the Taliban, harbouring them, training them in untold numbers and financing is coming from all over the Islamic world. We can win battles but we can't decisively win the war. It's ridiculous that if you are a realist you get accused of not supporting our troops or our "supposed" mission. I have great faith in our troops doing all they are capable of doing. They are not capable doing it all no matter how many we had. It has to come from the Afghans themselves; average Achmed Afghani has to want to have a life different than what he/she had under the Taliban, the warlords or of any occupiers and make that happen themselves by not giving, what we call our enemy, safe sanctuary or encouragement. In fact they need to let the fanatical factions among themselves know that it isn't ok and deal with them.

I disagree. If you just look at recycling for example, as many poor families recycle as more well-to-do families, and it may be that even more families recycle. If that is not a step in taking care of the environment, what is? The environment is not a CBC ploy as has been suggested on this forum; it is a genuine concern that the world's weather is changing and affecting every one of us. Do you not think poor people see this?

So, what happened to making new little cows the old fashioned way? I can't believe that we need to do this to feed ourselves. I do not trust our government to label properly cloned meat as they do not even think it is necessary to label hazardous products (such as things like Mr. Clean magic eraser) for the benefit of consumers. And, in a meat processing plant where all animals go, how do you keep cloned animals separate from the others? It would, imo, be impossible.

Khan was asked to make a decision and he did. It is not surprising to me that he would choose doing something useful and productive versus sitting in the back benches doing a whole lot of nothing. Most people want to be productive. Did he want to cross over and was looking for an excuse? Maybe or maybe not. Did he have that in mind when he volunteered for the position in Steve's government in the first place? Maybe or maybe not. Ultimately it doesn't matter. I think Khan should have become an independent until the next election but this is not how it works in our parliament. It seems it's every man (or woman) for themselves and the people are not supposed to mind (and they wonder why voters are so cynical and disinterested). Khan's situation is a bit different on the surface than other defections but all defections have some similarities: going to where they are given what they couldn't or wouldn't be given in their old party. Khan may not be getting a cabinet post but he is serving in a substantially different role than an opposition member. Did Steve think this all out before he accepted Khan's initial offer - I have no doubt that he did. John Baird is paying lip service to Canadians because he's smart and he knows that's what we want to hear. The CPC is getting good at either saying what Canadians want said or selling something making it seem to be what Canadians want. It's a system that the Liberals have used forever. Both parties have become excellent snake oil salesmen. Reform, real representation can't come too soon for me. Who will make this happen? Not a dam one of them.

Really, one day the right will get over reading "left" into every post that ever criticizes the Conservatives. What exactly is my problem? Unelected people in cabinet posts. That is my problem. How is that so hard to understand from my posts?

Didn't Rumsfeld and Cheney say about a year or so ago that insurgency was on it's last gasp in Iraq, or words to that effect? Just look at the mess now. I believe the same might be true today in Afghanistan. It seems there is a never ending source of insurgents, some fighting because they are Taliban, some fighting because it's bread and butter they can't get otherwise, some fighting just because we are seen as occupiers, some fighting to keep War Lords and their poppy fields happy. I think it is simplistic of the fighting forces spokespeople and the media to just refer to those who fight against us as Taliban.

I think the US has done too much undermining and subverting in it's history.

Ricki Bobbi You have failed to answer these questions (enquiring minds want to know): Do you think that we should have unelected people responsible for portfolios attributed to the HoC parliamentary system wherein we traditionally have had elected, responsible-by-being-accountable, MPs? Do you agree with unelected senators sitting in portfolios normally managed by elected representatives?

My statement was technically wrong. Now please answer the questions. Do you think that we should have unelected people responsible for portfolios attributed to the HoC parliamentary system wherein we traditionally have had elected, responsible by being accountable, MPs? Do you agree with unelected senators sitting in portfolios normally managed by elected representatives?

She was already in Cabinet. So your claim is just plain false.There are just as many Senators in Cabinet today as there were yesterday. But instead of admitting your mistake you tried to split hairs about the difference between the role of Leader of the Government in the Senate and Secretary of State for Seniors. Is it that hard to own up to an error? Ricki Bobbi, I think you are just being ornery but here goes: Government Senate Leader: The Leader of the Government in the Senate is responsible for the government's program in the Senate by: * planning and managing the government's legislative program in the Senate; * maintaining relations with the Opposition on all matters concerning Senate activities; and * working with the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to ensure the effective coordination of the government’s legislative program. http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Langu...nisters&Sub=LGS Which means she was dealing with SENATE MATTERS. This is, for all practical purposes, a non issue since the senate is outside the electoral realm and, in reality, has no power. NOW, she is dealing with Canadian matters, Parliamentary matters which should fall to an elected MP. How do you reconcile these two things? Or, let me rephrase this - do you think unelected (and thereby unaccountable to the voters) persons should be given responsibilities intended for (in our parliamentary system) elected by the people, for the people MP's.

Oh my. You had me up until this. In my not very humble opinion Dubya doesn't care about people; it wasn't for the people's freedoms that he went into Afghanistan, and certainly not why he went into Iraq. Afghanistan was a must do but he foresook (is that a word? Don't want Argus to discount my very enlightened opinions because of a mis-steak) the Afghani's (that not so incidentally he promised them he wouldn't do) to shine his light of democracy and freedom (i.e. doing what Daddy didn't, getting revenge for Daddy, geo-political positioning, oil..... oh so much there) on Iraq. Bush did what Bush did for Bush and no one will ever convince me that he did it for "the good of the people."

No, I'm quite serious Ricki Bobbi. I don't want unelected people in cabinet posts. That's what we elect MPs for, to run the country and to be accountable to the people. My stance on this is not dictated by my dislike of Harper, it would be the same if the party I vote for ever formed government.

Don't you think, though, that every girl that is allowed to attend school (by parents and by their surrounding environment) and every female that feels free enough to not walk around with a veil is a good start? Changing people's perspectives is not an overnight thing. Empowering women (I mean really empowering, not just some media's soundbites of one unveiled woman walking around her private compound) is huge in a place like Afghanistan. And maybe, just maybe, we plant an idea and it will grow regardless of whether we are there to force it or not. I know this sounds idealistic but everyone needs to come into the present century someday, why not Afghanistan?

Being Senate government leader is not exactly the same as being put into a normally elected representative cabinet role. But being secretary of state for seniors is exactly what we expect elected MPs to do. Don't you think there is a difference?

All of this is just hilarious. Harper put his man in Ambrose's office - it wasn't her environmental policy it was Harper's but it wouldn't have mattered; this government under estimated the public's awareness and interest in this area. To blame the failure of this policy on the CBC (or any other media) is just more of the Stevie fans blaming everything on everyone except Stevie. Baird might get the job done but his MO (in my opinion) is ramming not consulting; coercing and threatening, not communicating. We'll see if Steve lets him put a worthy policy in place. Baird above any elected politician (again, in my opinion) is just that, a power hungry politician that cares about nothing except rising in the ranks, both his party and himself. I trust him less than anyone in the government or in the opposition ranks (even less than Jack). I would have liked to have Ablonczy IN. Somehow down the road, I think Steve will pay for this. AND, AND ....... another unaccountable Senator in the Cabinet. How democratic.