Reverend Blair

I had exactly that discussion at work today. I don't feel that he addressed abortion or same-sex marriage adequately at all, he just repeated the same non-answers he has provided all along. He did nothing to alleviate my fears that his social conservatism and religious views will become policy. That's a major concern for a lot of us.

Mulroney is likely Canada's most despised former PM among living, voting Canadians, August. To be tied to him raises some serious questions as to membership in the human race, never mind as a Tory. I think the link is an important one to make. The way that it could backfire on Martin is that he also looks and smells like Mulroney to a lot of us. I don't think Harper can point that out though...not without leaving himself open to being called as crooked as both Martin and Mulroney. Nobody wants to be accused of that.

Hmmm...I live in Manitoba. We can argue whether I pay lower power rates than people in Quebec, the other province vying for lowest rates in Canada (maybe on the continent), but both have power supplied by Crown Corporations.

Where was Daisy? Never mind Harper for PM, Maple...I want Daisy Duke for PM.

No, Krusty. The US broke international law by defying the UN. Since they had no proof of WMD or an immediate danger to themselves the war was illegal. They can be criticised for so many other things though....predatory trade packages, tying the imposition of Bush's religious beliefs to aid programs, supporting countries that partake in human rights abuses, cancelling and backing out of international agreements and treaties, trying to evade international law by evading the ICC. Like I said before, this thread is about more than Iraq. It is a huge dis-service to Canada and the international community to suggest that criticising the US makes Canadians unpatriotic.

The call in shows that day were certainly not short of people expressing a certain amount of hatred for Trudeau. I watched Trudeau's eulogy in a bar...people were booing. That was all accepted because the man was very controversial. Reagan was controversial too, especially claims that he ended the Cold War, so why are we not supposed to speak out against his aims and policies? Aims and policies that are still making the world a worse, more dangerous, place today?

Wind power is not the only alternative, either. Recent innovations in the production of methanol will make it cost efficient, hydro-electric power is also becoming more efficient. With hydro-electric comes the possiblity of cleanly produced hydrogen. All four are technologies that have been proven to at least some extent in other countries or here in Canada. All will provide economic as well as environmental benefits. While all technologies have an environmental impact, that impact is less than the continued over-use of fossil fuels and lends greater possiblities for being mitigated over time.

I think Layton should concentrate on going after both Martin and Harper in equal doses. Harper has support in Saskatchewan and Manitoba...two provinces with a history of going from Conservative to NDP governments and back again. He's already gained the support he is likely to get from the left of the Liberal party, but moderate Conservatives can be brought over. Even if those Conservatives only travel as far as the Liberal Party, the NDP will have much more influence with a Liberal minority than with a Harper minority. Duceppe will continue to concentrate on Martin, as he should. Harper and Layton are basically non-factors in Quebec. Martin didn't get rocked in the French debate, and I doubt he'll get rocked tonight. He needs to remain calm, but if he wants to gain points he has to show a little righteous indignation when they go after his record instead of trying to evade the questions. Saying, "We were forced into cuts by the actions of your advisor and predecessor, Brian Mulroney, Mr. Harper. Your paltform bears a strong resemblance to his actions," would go a long way towards backing Harper up a step or two.

I wouldn't say they completely lost control, but they were on the verge a couple of times. They need to shut the mics off for the people who are not supposed to be speaking when that happens. I was kind of surprised at the beating that Harper took from all three candidates on social programs. He had to know the questions were coming, yet still had no clear answers and no real strategy to diffuse the attacks. He also seemed to stutter a bit at the beginnings of all of his replies, like he was having trouble thinking in French, as somebody else here noted. After spending a full four days preparing, I really expected more from him. Layton did much better, getting his point across and remaining above the fray for the most part. He was clear on social issues and on economic issues, did not appear to be running from his past or present policies the way Harper did. In fact he proudly referred back to them. Neither Harper nor Layton has a chance in Quebec though, so I'm not sure that the French language debate was that important to them...more of a practice session for tonight. Martin, who really needs some support in Quebec, got his ass kicked. He appeared evasive and lacked real answers to direct questions. Duceppe was the clear winner. He was eloquent, scored points against each of the others, and looked to be honest and fair-minded. He also looked like the only one there with the ability to balance a strong stand on principles with compromising with the other parties to achieve what he feels is best for his constituents. I'm from Manitoba and against breaking up the country, but I have to say, if I was living in Quebec right now I would seriously consider voting for this guy.

I base that on the things he has said, the issues he has remained mute on, and his record in parliament, as well as his pre-elected history, Argus. Those are all a matter of public record. I've garnered them from a variety of press outlets. Stephen Harper is indeed an ideologue trying to hide from his past record and the record of his party in order to appear slightly less disgusting than he is. Abortion, Arar, racial profiling, native issues, gay rights, Iraq, trade, aid, social programs. It isn't like Harper just dropped in out nowhere, he has a record. He is trying to hide that record. Why is he so ashamed of his past?

Layton haas clearly stated that "rich" is somebody who makes over $250,000/year. The inheritance tax is for people inheriting more than a million. Those aren't exactly middle class numbers and they are not "vague generalities."

The UN and most of the world does not consider this a continutation of the Gulf War anymore than WWII was considered a continuation of WWI. The US does not have the right to attack other nations because it doesn't like their leaders, nor does any other country. The only reason an attack is justified is proof of an immediate danger. Iraq posed no such threat. By the way, the US also lied to gain allies for the first Gulf War. Remember those stories about Iraqi soldiers dumping premature babies on the floor in a Kuwaiti hospital? It never happened. The woman who testified that it did later recanted and admitted to being paid by the US, then ruled by George I. Did you read the link though? I know 28 pages is a lot, but the issue here isn't just the illegal invasion of Iraq, it is the overall criminality of the Bush regime. Their actions in Iraq have showed that criminality.

Not to mention the Bush administration embracing regimes like that of Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. While invading Iraq to free it of Saddam (a US-created monster) the Bush administration is creating other Saddams.

Given Harper's stand on so many things, the comparisons between Bush and Harper are inevitable. Both men are basically ideologues when it come to the free market and have shown little respect for individual and human rights. As for the copyright...it's becoming an issue everywhere because in the end whoever owns the website is going to be on the hook for any copyright infringement. I prefer to see links. That being said though, ss flamingo did clearly state that he received the article in an e-mail, and he did give credit to the author. It's kind of a grey area. I know that many of things I get in e-mails are press releases (mostly from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) and, although they hold the copyright, they want them published in as many places as possible. On the other hand I get newsletters from Michael Moore and Arianna Huffington too. I have no idea how they feel about copyright infringement, so if I quote them at all, I try to keep it to less than a paragraph.

Actually a clear and present danger is the only thing that matters because the US cannot unilaterally enforce UN resolutions when the UN tells it not to. That is only one crime the US has committed in Iraq though, there are a plethora of others. Thisreport from the Ceneter for Economic and Social Rights gives some pretty detailed information on a range of them.

I don't think people are stupid at all, August. I do think they will seek out the media source that best reflect their own biases, making opinion very hard to change. People need to watch a variety of news if they are to stay informed amd understand that their views may not be the prevailing views.

A little later you acknowledge that 2/3 of the murders committed with guns were committed with hand guns, Slavik. I already said that those should be banned outright, so there is no longer any easy access. There will still be illegal guns available, especially since our southern neighbour has become, more and more, a gun culture. Those guns need to be stopped, as much as possible, at the border though. Jail time and permanent bans for non-Canadians trying to bring guns into the country would go a long way toward acheiving that because severe penalties would push the price of black market guns up. For responsible gun owners guns are just a tool for hunting or getting rid of pests. They overwhelmingly use long guns. They commit very few crimes. Some need safety courses, something that I've said should be mandatory, but most have already taken courses or learned from others how to handle guns safely.

Kind of makes you wonder what the Harper cuts will come out of.

It is pretty much impossible to put together an entertaining story of more than a few words that does not have a bias. The CBC actually does a pretty good job of that in its hard news, so does CTV. Both offer large dollops of opinion as well. The CBC does a better job of balancing those dollops than CTV IMO, but both are regularly accused of bias.

This time around...and forever if we keep voting for them. If you want real change, then vote for it. We are most likely looking at a minority government this time around. That will give even a Green MP some power to sway the things are done. Funny...I just wrote something expressing that same sentiment. I had Martin in about the same position as Harper though. I agree. The NDP needs time to learn. A minority Liberal government would give them time to do that while balancing the neo-conservative tendencies of Paul Martin. I'm not sure what you're referring to there, Argus. I grew up in Saskatchewan and currently live in Manitoba. The NDP have proved themselves to be at least as fiscally responsible as the Conservatives time after time. The federal NDP paltform calls for increasing the taxes on the rich, not the middle class, and giving tax relief to the poor, so obviously you aren't talking about them. Nothing simple about it at all. It is actually quite a complex issue. There is nothing radical about demanding good governance though, especially not within the bounds of protecting our sovereignty and nationhood. right back atcha, Argus.

I hate to burst the Conservative bubble, but the NDP has done far more in the House of Commons to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the last few years than the Alliance/Conservatives have. The Canadian Patriot Act(s)? NDP opposed it, Conservatives said it didn't go far enough. Maher Arar? Stephen Harper liked the idea of him being deported to a country known to torture prisoners. The NDP opposed his deportation and fought for his repatriation. The internal passport? NDP oppose, Alliance/Conservatives want as much information kept as possible. Equal rights for gays? NDP support, Alliance Conservatives oppose. Canadian Census by Lockheed-Martin? NDP oppose, Alliance/Conservatives mute. Proportional representation? NDP support, Alliance/Conservatives mute of late.

The same way we find contraband now, Slavik. Routine checks, suspicion of other things leading to searches, etc. That would be especially effective at border crossings. We will not catch every gun or illegal gun owner, just like we don't catch every shipment of heroin coming into the country. Having real penalties and acknowledging the problem is far more effective than making law-abiding cittizens suffer and giving ourselves a false sense of security that something is being done though.

I know too many people who hunt (and give me the occasional deer steak) to support the gun registry or banning guns within city limits. I was also raised spending a lot of time on farms where the .22 is a fact of life...for pest control, not protection. We do need gun control though. The first step would be to step up border security and permanently ban any non-Canadian caught trying to bring guns into Canada. The second step would be a registration of all gun owners through the FAC. That should include a mandatory gun safety check, criminal record check for violent crimes, mental stability check and so on. There should be no registry for each firearm. If you have guns and don't have an FAC, go to prison. Handguns should be illegal. I know some people target shoot with them and I know some people in the US hunt with them. Their most common use is shooting people though, so they should be banned outright. Assault weapons should be illegal. I don't know one single hunter who needs a semi-automatic (which can be converted to full auto) assault rifle to shoot deer with.

Well, I don't fit into the "young" category anymore...I'm pushing forty. I don't think that writing off young Canadians, who are the ones who will feel the effects of today's policies for the longest time, simply because they may not agree with you is a wise decision. These people are eligible to vote, are Canadians, and have every right to expect their questions and concerns to be addressed by the candidates. That one candidate did not feel that he should address those questions and concerns speaks more about him than the questioners.

There are plenty of facts going the other way, Krusty. The biggest one being that the US was the aggressor nation and presented no proof that it was in clear and present danger. Despite your implications to the contrary, it has still not shown that Iraq was a threat to the United States and has provided no proof of wmd or ties between al Qaeda and Hussein. No state has the right to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions, especially when the UN is standing there telling them not to. Those are contraventions of international law and Canada was right not to support the US in following them. The illegal actions have continued too. The torture at Abu Ghraib, the changing of the economic structure of Iraq, the failure to protect infrastructure and civilians from looting are all against not only international conventions the US is a signatory too, but against US law as well. Not criticising such action is a disservice not only to Canada, but to the world.