Hawk

Who exactly says this ? What's with this persecution complex ? There have been more premiers from the west in the last 40 years than there have been from Ontario, by far. The west gave us socialized medicine, the NDP, and balanced budgets. You have a bigger effect than you realize. Exactly, we ARE a big deal, we know that, the problem is most Canadians living in the East don't and so we are treated with grudging indifference because we are a bunch of hicks =p I assure you, we are not hicks, we are the enlightened ones, we know the value of hard work, of earning your way in the world, of strong family structure, of strong social structure, and so we vote for the conservatives because while they may still be more Liberal than some of us desire they at least are more right-wing than the Liberals that are rampantly steering our country into anarchy

I urge you to rephrase that statement, the West is far more important than you give us credit for... heck without our provincial income half the other provinces in Canada would have to drastically cut their budgets =p The problem is that everyone takes from the West, demanding we serve them, then they say we dont exist or we aren't important. Guess what, we are here, and we dont like being ignored =p In regards to the Atlantic Region premier, big deal, its nothing compared with the fights going on within the Liberal party... where there are people there will be differences, simple fact of life, the difference is that Conservatives are mainly on the same page whereas Liberals are so diverse I am amazed they can even function (oh wait, they can't)

The comparison is not so ridiculous as you claim, as was stated earlier 50 years ago same-sex marriage would be completely unacceptable yet today you are called a bigot if you dont accept them. Is that tolerance on either side? Not to mention, if I am a bigot for denouncing homosexuality are you a bigot for denouncing child pornography? Or for denouncing poligamy? Or for denouncing rapists? Where does your 'tolerance' become no longer tolerant sir and how will you ensure the envelope isn't pushed any furthur? As one of my favorite authors (Terry Goodkind) puts so clearly, "... it proliferates until anarchy wears the robes of tolerance and understanding" Are you willing to sacrifice everything for tolerance? Are you really so enlightened as you believe your views are, or are you simply being intentionally ignorant?

So your justifying the alienation of the West based on the fact the Premier of Alberta isn't releasing his 'package' till after the election? That is one damnably weak platform you have supporting you then. As for the Paul Martin 'team' this isn't the first nor will it be that last time the Liberals have low-blowed the West, they do it to win votes out east, everyone does it... know why? Because the west is full of english 'nazis' who believe in 'evil' conservative views, so taking a chunk out of us brings them a pile of support from left-leaners in Ontario and Quebec. Not to mention we are no threat, heck even if every single person west of Ontario voted against the Liberals they could get at least a minority government. Its pathetic =p

It does if you claim to value honesty, especially if you rail against the US government using 'lies' as your weapons. Kind of flipfloped isn't it? Supporting one liar in the worlds eyes (Moores) for a liar to your eyes =p So they should be ousted for using two specific words in the same sentance? Conspiracy theory anyone? At the time they were acting on intelligence, and that intelligence was not 100% correct (as we now know through the beauty of hindsight). However a very good result happened, and that is that Iraq is now free of a TERRORIST leader that ruled through terror. Where is the evidence claiming the innocence of Saddam? I dont see any of that either yet you claim he is, that thinking works both ways Not to mention the press sometimes intentionally leaves certain parts out to 'make things interesting'... dont trust the press, question it Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities Actually by definition I would say he fits the bill =p Firstly, they still might =) Secondly, because Saddam was by far the most dangerous among them (according to the intelligence information). I am not seeing your point, please be more clear lol What would you prefer, wait till they nuke you before you disarm them? Yeah thats a 'good' plan =p Double-standard, easy to fall back on, but oh-so-cowardly. If you dont understand what I mean it is simply that Liberals have a double standard that they dont believe exists, its a 'your damed if you do, damed if you dont' sort of deal. By invading Iraq you declare Bush and the USA as heartless invaders, murderers, etc etc. Yet should they have not acted and Saddam had nuked USA or even Canada WHOA would there ever be hell to pay (because hey, the Bush administration was warned right? They 'failed to act on intelligence information prior to the attack') Also dont start on the international law, if you believe the UN to be a credible institute then begin a new topic to discuss that one. I personally hold it in the highest contempt How so? I fail to see the bitter fruit, sorry but I just dont see the connection x.x Hehe in some areas sure but I highly doubt any of us are on-topic anymore xD

No the whole point of jail is a deterrent, a punishment, something you want to avoid. Hence if you take away the deterrent or punishment you increase the urge to disobey the rule. It has nothing to do with physical harm, although I believe physical harm should be treated with far more severity. For example, if someone rapes and kills women I believe that man should be executed, thats right capital punishment. In the far past innocent people were killed yes, but with DNA and all the other miracles of technology wrongly convicting criminals basically never happens... especially if it involves taking other people's lives. White collar crime should be treated as a robbery, since that is exactly what it is. I like your idea of banning him from ever being an executive again since that would deter almost anyone that wanted a career =p But when it comes to the hacker/virus writer that idea flops, because simply put a hacker/virus writer could use public computers, friend's computers, anyone's computers and do just what he was convicted for. It is far to insecure, and not to mention he could very well purchase his own and simply hide it when the cops show up at the door (laptops are easy to hide)

Actually, the whole point of me saying that the movie doesn't need to be evidence of anything is that it has become painfully clear, hardly even worth debate, that the "connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda doesn't exist. Gullibility exists in equal proportions on both sides of the fence. For you perhaps Iraq was invaded to take out an al Qaeda supporter but for me we did it to get rid of a leader who was in fact a terrorist to his people, and who (if not stopped) would inevitably cause massive damage to western civilization. Perhaps that is something worthy of debate eh?

I love that source! xD! I knew he was bogus in many aspects but that showed me so many more hahaha

Of course not, I also know Liberals who support the war. But if we are classifying a political ideology and what it is for or against then Liberals are mainly against the war and most Conservatives either are undecided or supportive of the Bush administration. As I stated above, I also know Liberals who support the war Yes but Liberals and the left-wing tend to take these 'perspectives' as concrete truth and proven evidence... I have debated with people who have used Meyers and his Columbine video as evidence for gun control being needed, the problem is that again Meyers paints his own picture and ignores or blams hard facts in exchange for heart-wrenching stories and 'facts' that feed the left-wing lobbyist flame. I call it laughable because it IS laughable how gullible some left-wing people are, they allow themselves to be brainwashed by their own media and claim it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth =p

Thank for that almost completely offtopic post bionic, please stay on subject. I personally think the movie will boost the morale of Liberals everywhere, because it will feed their propogated minds with the enlightened junk that they require to survive. I can GAURANTEE you that this movie will be used as supporting evidence in many debates and arguments, which is completely laughable

Because you Liberals try and bait him with it, heck I could list 65 Liberal scandals and you would simply ignore them for Harper's stance on the war and vote the Liberals in again. Your a bunch of bloody hypocrites All politicians tell lies to get elected, the Liberals have been lying for 4 terms and still you vote for them. I dont trust your judgement on matters like this, you have proven your own inability to learn from the past So are you suggesting the right supports lying to get elected? Great. Let's deceive Canadians, let's bamboozle them, so they have no idea what policies they are voting for. How sad! No if you would read my post I supported your point that most politicians lie to get elected, yet I also turned it around and showed that since you re-elected the lying Liberals 4 terms in a row your thoughts on Harper cannot be trusted =p In regards to that source I referred to (65 scandals) here it is: http://www.davidchatters.com/parliament.cfm Knock yourself out, and vote LIBERAL!! =p

Well said playfullfellow and Stoker. Oh, and ceasar while your at it please do address some of my rebuttals, it is rather tiring to have to read your common rants and spend the time responding to them only to have you repeat your rants again all the while refusing to address my post. Thanks =) PS Add this to the list of rebuttals: Am I not Canadian, are the right-wing Canadians not Canadians? You are yet again doing the whole Liberal 'I am enlightened and you are savages' thing which makes me laugh when I read it, if I didn't see it everday I wouldn't believe it possible such narrow minds could exist. Harper represented the right-wing, he had every right to go and apologise for our betrayal (refer to previous posts for my supporting arguments regarding our betrayal). Its a pity our Prime Minister allowed personal differences to get in the way and used this whole thing as a political edge. In regards to your OPINION that the Bush administration was wrong again it is noted, but not confirmed. WMD could be discovered any day, refusing to admit to such is blatant self-indulged ignorance

Because you Liberals try and bait him with it, heck I could list 65 Liberal scandals and you would simply ignore them for Harper's stance on the war and vote the Liberals in again. Your a bunch of bloody hypocrites All politicians tell lies to get elected, the Liberals have been lying for 4 terms and still you vote for them. I dont trust your judgement on matters like this, you have proven your own inability to learn from the past

What religion have Canada's PMs been in this century (both English and French)? Why do people send their kids to immersion? Why does anyone still speak French on this continent? "Got the crap kicked out"??? What planet are you living on? Yes, the French settled Canada, then the English came in and took over. Read up on your Canadian history, you can thank us for allowing you to keep your culture too. In regards to the Prime Minister's religions, the reason they are 'catholic' (funny even though the Pope didn't like Jean Chretien one bit) is because if they were 'Christian' they would recieve no votes because Christians are majorly discriminated against. When you say people enter immersion you forget that you live in your little world of Montreal, the rest of us (yes around 80% of Canada) however are mainly English. I personally dont know more than 2 words of French, and I am proud. Personally I dont believe we in the West should be forced to learn French and speak French while in Quebec they aren't forced to learn English. But that is my personal opinion, not relevant to this argument. You imply that if someone is gay, then they'll eventually be a child molester. I used the water to Scotch analogy. Maybe I should have pointed out that most child molesters seem to be heterosexuals. WHAT??? First off WHERE did you get that? Read my post again please, because I was CLEARLY stating that with the mentality that you use to justify homosexuality that almost anything could be justified. I still don't what you mean by "socially acceptable" and "socially natural". Then perhaps you shouldn't be arguing on the topic To my knowledge, one of the first States to experiment with democracy was Athens, around 450 BC. I don't believe religion had much to do with it.India is a functioning democracy and religion, much less Christianity or Protestantism, has a small role to play. IMV, there is no obvious connection between democracy and religion. Athens, remember those ancient gods people are so interested in? Yeah, from the same time period, read your history more carefully please. and India.. Are you seriously going to use that? Your talking about a ME state my friend, and that means Islam. Is Islam not a religion? What values are you referring to? Are they religious values or political values? Read the ten commandments and get back to me

Of course, but as I said, we were 'Britain's' children, we were defending the homeland! =p See this is what irkes me... hindsight is 20/20, and Liberals have a double standard that disgusts me. First off, if Bush hadn't acted on the intelligence and it had turned out Saddam DID have WMD (which he still may have for all we know) and he used them I can just see the headlines 'BUSH ADMINISTRATION WARNED OF IMPENDING THREAT AND FAILED TO ACT' Whereas in this situation he DID act, the WMD have not yet been found (and they may or may not ever be found) and headlines are decarling 'BUSH ADMINISTRATION UNJUSTLY INVADES IRAQ' and so on. It is rather dissapointing that Libs can't understand such simple concepts but in my opinion they are too simple-minded to comprehend human error unless the one making the error is a Lib too =p Democratic? I dont recall a vote on 1939, I do recall a government declaring war on a 'terrorist' leader bent on the extermination of Israelites (Jews) however. My oh my, I also recall plenty of appeasement offered to start the whole thing off, all to please the left-wing and 'try to find a peaceful solution, give him what he wants'. The League of Nations failed in WW2 and the UN will fail as well, I dont trust them as far as I can throw em (and I can't throw them very far). Any organization that puts one of the leading human rights abusive nation in charge of the Human Rights department is NOT to be trusted with international security. Avoiding your problems until they become a crisis is a very foolish plan, think about how many people could have been saved if the League of Nations had stepped in and stopped Germany instead of appeasing them? Not to mention I doubt the Canadian military could even support a single tour of duty in Iraq if they wanted to, another problem with having a Liberal government in power. The shame of what was once considered the best (if not then one of the best) fighting forces on earth.

That's false. Canada was at its inception Catholic and it remains a country dominated by Catholic belief. And guess what, the French got the crap kicked out of them by the Protestants. Who then ran the country How do you define "socially acceptable"? I defined it right there, if you can't read dont complain to me. Simply use your logic and read =) Do you mean that if I drink water, it's inevitable that I'll become an alcoholic? So now your arguing in riddles? If you want to dance around a topic I can play that game too, please state your point Do you really mean that it is impossible to have democracy without religion? Whare was democracy first used to guide the affairs of State? What role did religion play? Fundamental principle: Without a beginning there can be no end Therefore if we were founded with religion then how can you tell me that religion has no place in politics? If those great founding fathers created these great democratic nations based on religious values the only thing confusing is why you would want to strip away those values. Do you honestly want to destroy your culture? The values that made this country great, the values that kept us alive this long, the values that held us from anarchy and extremists, and you want to remove them. Maybe you should re-examine your beliefs if you are willing to cause such damage simply to attack the basis of our nation

When Canada refused to join the US in this Iraq war, we were not backstabbing anyone. Would you say the US backstabbed us when it chose not to join us in 1939? Governments in different countries choose as they wish to do what they want. Canada and the US and France are all democracies. The governments chose in democratic fashion. Respect that choice. Oh really? We didn't backstab them? We didn't cry out against them, we didn't make ourselves out to be 'the good guys of North America' and the USA 'the evil tyrant-led fascist invaders'? Think again, if we simply disagreed and didn't attack the USA politically I would agree with you, because you see in 1939 we went to war more because Britain was at war and we had yet to gain our complete sovereignty than because we chose to. The states however did not go after Canada's blood for joining the war did they? Now if you want to say 'the situation was different etc etc etc' then maybe you shouldn't have brought it up to support your argument hmm?

Secondly Rev: Really? So you want it changed to exlude us? Wow great sense of equality there =p First off, Canada was founded by Protestants, therefore when they say 'under God' that means the CHRISTIAN God, if you couldn't figure that one out on your own you should stop being 'witty'. I may sound harsh but your cynical attitude is wearing. As was stated before Marriage was originally a union before God and State, something that at the time of our constitution was accepted and promoted. However Canada has allowed the religion of Secularism and anti-Christianity to seep and poison the values this nation was founded on. You claim to be Canadian yet you spit on your own Christian heritage, while you may not be a Christian that does not mean you should attempt to destroy or conform the traditions of those who are. If your wife was a husband go ahead and 'marry' them and do whatever unnatural things you want together, but that is only because those loony Liberals pushed through the legislation as they do with anything they want (and you defend them saying they are 'democratic', and you say the right-wing are the dictators-to-be.. guess what, there is already a dictator ruling Canada) It should not be socially acceptable because it is not socially natural, man was not made for man, woman was not made for woman. If it was natural they could reproduce, but they can't, they can only degrade the values of our society and lower standards. Once we allow homosexuals what is stopping child-molesting or poligamy from being 'ok'? Hey they are people too right? They can love the little kid they are having sex with, so that makes it all ok right? Funny isn't it how every democracy was founded under religion and yet you say it has no place in our culture, think that one through before defending it. Bill C-250. Now we, the straight men and women of Canada, can be jailed for showign distate for homosexuality. Oh, and did I mention it adds enough generalization to possibly support the banning of religious texts that preach against homosexuality? Freedom of religion violation anyone? What happened to 'the right of your fist ends where the right of my nose begins'? Your supporting your own downfall Rev, plain and simple, if the values you pursue were allowed to ferment you would end up with a comrade Canadian system with everything you want... workshops, poverty, dictator, nobody better than you except the officials who berate the rest of you for wanting more, no freedoms, no rights, the good of the whole, secret police. Socialism is a very dangerous and blind path to follow reverend, tread it carefully.

First off, ceasar: Regarding your post about Stephen Harper going to the States to apologise, about Canadians against the war being 100% correct, and about the Americans needing to apologise to us. Your 100% wrong. Why? Because what we did to the States was literally a backstabbing, we are close neighbours and allies NOT enemies. We share a border, we must stick together through hard times not bicker and fight. It hurts us especially economically, and it hurts a relationship which has flourished for a very long time. Your problem is that you are anti-American, and I cannot help you with that one because I personally am not. I am pro-Canadian, and I am not lying to myself about the significance of America to Canadian interests. When you say that the Canadians against the war were 100% correct you intentionally ignore my previous posts to you, so please do refer back to them. Your opinions are not facts, so please do stop using them. Secondly you posted about Health Care, yet you again posted your opinion. Privatization provides competition, competition creates lowered costs and better/quicker service, lowered costs mean cheaper service, and better/quicker service means shorter wait lists and less 'accidents'. Communist Russia tried to centralize everything, it didn't work, centralization does NOT work past the Municiple level and never has. It merely ends up with a corrupt, inefficient, and dangerous government that only survives by lying to their population and leading them to believe they are the 'enlightened ones'. When you say Harper lacks self-control and class, and that he opens his big mouth without thinking... maybe you should look at the Liberals. Recall with me the Liberal MPs swearing at Americans on national television, does that sounds like a party that thinks before speaking? Self control? class? Look at the source I cited earlier, it lists 65 (and increasing when found) scandals of the Liberal government. Since you didn't look at it before here it is again: http://www.davidchatters.com/parliament.cfm Harper will not be an embarrasment, how can we be anymore embarrassed after what this current administration has turned this country into? He lowered the deficit simply by cutting provincial payouts which in turn forced Provinces to cut spending in many areas (including HEALTH CARE since that is a PROVINCIAL jurisdiction) so the real monster you are declaring to us all is truly the ones you defend =) If you want to support the Finance minister with a legacy of scandals and the destruction of Canada's pride, Canada's morals, Canada's integrity, and Canada's constitution then by all means vote for Paul Martin and let him continue his destructive work for another 4 years =p

lol you got me, yes... but I was referring moreso to the economic strength of the one over the other... it is pointless to argue the superior economic power of the Nazis vs the Communists but yes they were both a terrible government

See you just supported your own downfall, your basing this on personal arguments and not on facts. Your personal opinion has been noted, however that does not justify calling them a 'racist, homophobic, pro-life caucus' Your personal opinions on Abortion, gay marriages, immigration, and capital punishment are yours to have... but they are not everyone's, and therefore claiming anyone that doesn't hold your views is a 'racist, homophobic' or some such name is extremely childish and ignorant. Intolerance is actually in your court, simply look at how vehemently you are reacting towards those who hold right-wing ideologies =p

I agree, I travelled to Edmonton about a month ago and had to take a puddle jumper from Lethbridge to Calgary, then from Calgary to Edmonton... there was NOBODY on the flight that were French yet we had to sit and wait for all the announcements and safety instructions to be said in French... it was interesting the first time you heard it, but after that it is downright irritating and pointless x.x Hey why dont we all be like Quebec and demand special status, then make ourselves English-only and vandalize and harrass any French in the West =p

As was stated earlier the real question at hand is whether or not going into Iraq was 'LEGAL'. It has been proven to be a legal invasion and therefore somewhat justified, while Bush has yet to find WMD that does NOT mean they do not exist. A farmer in Milk River could hide a WMD in an old well on his land and you would never find it, you dont think in Iraq they have even MORE hiding spots like that? I am not saying for certain there is some, but since the issue cannot be proven either way lets not use it as supporting evidence k? In regards to your commends on the US violating and vetoing UN resolutions... please be more specific and I will address your issues, especially regarding the violations. Seems to me for one so worried about violations of UN resolutions you should be supporting Bush, since Saddam was in violation of many prior to the invasion =p

As was stated earlier, please do offer supporting EVIDENCE of all those charges. Your Liberal rants are tiring to read since they are 90% of the time completely the same as what every other Liberal says, signs of shared brainwashing Liberal media =p You think your precious Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were/are saints? LOL, here is a compiled list I found that list some of the corruptions of the Liberal government in the last 10 years: http://www.davidchatters.com/parliament.cfm Interesting eh?

except that Nazism is strong right-wing extremist and communism is weak left-wing extremist =p As for that test: Economic Left/Right: 3.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.08 xD