nicky10013

Now...while precisely 5% of the Canadian public is truly paying attention to politics...

So you're for hate crimes legislation?

Maybe, but those same stories existed under Dion and he got in fair and square. These stories would've been around no matter what. If a party isn't power, and by no means just the Liberals - there's infighting within the party. This kind of speculation dogged the PCs for decades.

Of course, but if we're to be fair, even if there were never any stories about infighting whatsoever, he'd still be gone if he lost seats in an election. There are lots of stories about infighting within the CPC (Peter McKay, anyone?), yet, the Liberals are magnified problems are magnified simply because they're not in power.

I think we should be critical but I also think we should be fair. Communities within Canada should be criticised for not speaking up on the issue, but lets be frank, this doesn't just happen in only one community, in this example the muslim community, and to pretend like it does I personally do find offensive.

I personally don't know if I'd say it's cultural. Like I said, people here kill their spouses all the time for infedelity real or imagined. Why not call that an honour killing?

I didn't dispute the fact that we make distinctions and to be fair I disagree with Trudeau, I merely asked why in this case honour killing is more barbaric? When we boil it down, an honour killing is a father or brother killing a woman in the family for showing independence in one form or another. Is that truly worse than a husband killing a wife for insurance money - or a better example yet - a husband or wife killing their spouse because of an affair?

All murder is. Why is this particularly more babaric than other forms?

Ah so there it is. You don't mind public funding for events (like the Calgary Stampede) but not for funding for events for "the gays." People who view the treatment of animals in the stampede to be immoral have views just as valid as yours. This is what pisses me off about conservatives. They pretend to be morally superior; they "protect freedom." Except if you're gay, want an abortion - I was going to say a muslim but lets be honest and say anyone who isn't christian.

No. The party is far more united than any CPC supporter wants to hear.

Harper is easily the most recognizable figure of all the political leaders. The fact that his approval rating is at 26% says a lot. Ignatieff's is low but no one knows him. He has just as big an opportunity to move up as he does to stay where he is which is about as low as he can get. The bar is so low that he'd have to be crawling to trip over it. He's going to impress a lot of people by just being fluent. I can't disagree with most of this. I wish Canadians were engaged enough that it would be otherwise, yet I think this is true. Unsigned contract. No money lost. That and the replacement of the sea king was cancelled so long ago I doubt if the institutional memory is there for it to be a negative. If anyone were to vote against the Liberals for cancelling the Seaking it'll be the Conservatives that STILL don't vote for the Liberals because of Trudeau. You know, for the most part I agree with you. I think the term police state is ludicrous. I also think a lot of protestors knew what they were getting into. Yet, there were still serious abuses. For all the hooliganism, the videos of cops beating protestors is still very real and it shouldn't have happened. Steve Paikan himself was beaten and arrested despite the film crew he was with and the press pass he was holding. For all the over-reaction, there's still legitimate grievances. I don't disagree. The problem on the economy is fighting perception, though. You see it with Wild Bill and Blueblood. Despite the citing of undisputable history, people refuse to believe that any party other than the CPC are fisaclly responsible.

I don't support this, yet I laugh at the lack of institutional memory. Not too many people here were opposed to the funding when Harper waved it in the face of Quebec until the city and project rejected the idea of any kind of federal involvement.

There wasn't a recession. There was a little thing called the referendum. That's what the advertising was for and all of it save a fraction of what some idiots in Quebec shaved off the top, contrary to what most conservatives claim actually did go to advertising.

Everything has a reason. Remember Dudley George? If McGuinty had sent in the OPP to crack skulls and someone ended up dead, you might not have a problem with it but it would seriously undermine the authority (already lacking) of the provincial and even federal authorities on both sides of the issue. Also, the reason why everyone likes to hate Toronto is an inferiority complex. Toronto isn't any better or worse than any other place, it's just bigger. It gets the most attention in the news because the most amount of people live there. Our sports team gets covered the most because there are more viewers that watch them than any other team in the country - obviously not because they're better but because they make more ad revenue due to the higher audiences. They hate Toronto because for some stupid reason people outside of Toronto think that Torontonians only care about themselves precisely because Toronto gets the most coverage even though that one is true, but then again everyone does that. Which is where this problem lies. You're bemoaning him about the fact that he only cares about what happens in downtown Toronto and not in Caledonia. However, you're doing the exact same thing. You're totally ignoring the fact that what happened in the G20 really had an effect on the people that live and work in the city. Unless of course I'm getting wrong the reason why people hate Toronto - why is that?

Well, what I would like to know is that even though Conservatives are claiming that they don't support funding for any public event, how come it's always pride they complain about? Why aren't there any threads condemning the massive amounts of money something like the Calgary Stampede recieves? http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6460966-stephen-harper-postpone-unnecessary-election/image/60591998-stephen-harper

It doesn't matter who triggers the election. THe opposition might try to blame him, but it won't stick because it never has before. Harper called the election in 2008 pretty much out of the blue. How badly did it hurt him? The story over who called the election is a one day thing.

Whether he gets to deliver the budget to parliament or not, it's what Harper will be running on. I don't think in the end who ends up triggering the election or why will end up being the ballot question. If the opposition brings down the government on corruption charges then that could end up being a story that runs a few days and who knows where the momentum from that can go. Then again, Harper may think there's no chance of that happening. We'll see what happen.

I know for a fact that it's the 21st. It's all up to to the NDP now. edit: unless Harper calls a snap election sometime in the week running up to the 21st.

As much as I agree with this, recently he's been one of Harper's strongest cabinet ministers. He did his job and didn't really cause any scandals. I'm curious as to who they think they can replace him with.

Certainly. Apparently he was diagnosed with terminal inoperable lung cancer in 2005. If he's hung on this long, all I have to say is good for him. Now, I'm completely in the dark as to any activities he might be doing, but his would be a great story to get out there and fundraise for the CCS. He could do some real good, if it isn't his health of course that is keeping him from his schedule.

He's definitely got fight, to think that he doesn't isn't being fair. The reason why there hasn't been much of a response is due to money. Why spend money and end up in an ad war that you'll get trounced on because you don't have the money? Why do that especially when you won't have money to fight a campaign that's going to start a week monday (especially since they've got just enough money to run a campaign with no debt)? Why do it when you'll never actually move the polls outside the writ? I just ask the question how visible is Ignatieff really? I've never seen him on local news. He's only really on cable news which no one really watches and he's in the papers far less than Harper is. No one knows who the guy is. He's doing as much as he can with the exposure he's got. Your view is completely understandable but you'll never get the entire story until you actually see him out on the stump. To say that he's not Prime Ministerial - not ready for a fight - at this point is ridiculous. Wait 2-3 weeks into the campaign and then let's revisit the issue.

Harper has never been a good debater. The fact that Harper has been through it before and the last time I checked only had a 26% approval rating I think speaks to a great problem Conservatives don't want to face. To say Ignatieff won't be a good debater is premature. We haven't seen him in one. Though, he has considerable skill in public speaking and was a professor at Oxford and Harvard tells me that he should be ok.

You're right about Mulroney, but you might want to check about Turner. He ran against Mulroney in 1984. He took over the party leadership from Trudeau.

That's what Turner said. That's what Mulroney said. That's what us Liberals said with Harper. Will this be the same? Who knows. One thing I do know is that polls before an election don't matter because no one pays attention before an election. With Ignatieff as the only new guy in the field despite how bad he's polling, he's at least got a fresh start. Everyone knows Gilles, Jack and Stevie wonder. They're going to take a hard look at Ignatieff and if any of his tours which have all recieved great reviews (even from the National Post) he's got a great shot of shocking people. So please, continue with the hubris, it only helps the Liberals.

Unless Harper pre-empts the politicians (hell, I'd do it if I were him). March 21st. Book it.