Bryan

Why do you need an injection site to smoke marijuana?

Up or down, the blips are the trend. The more the numbers appear to change, the more they stay the same over time. Every time CPC looks to be running away, back to 36%. Every time LPC look to be getting back on their feet, back to 23%. Rinse and repeat.

A company that makes things that are designed to be used in battle who have a dark sense of humor. Sorry, this is news why?

It depends on who is asking the question, what the actual question is, and how the data is calculated. Most polls have shown that Harper is not only considered a better leader than the others, but he personally is more popular than the Conservative Party itself. Take this Sept 21/08 (today) Nanos poll for instance: http://www.nanosresearch.com/election/CPAC...er-21-2008E.pdf. Harper's approval is way out in front, in every category.

I strongly support the CPC strategy with respect to illegal drugs. While enabling these addicts may well get them off the street, and make their continued habits less risky, it still remains a poor strategy compared to taking action to reduce illegal drug use in the first place.

If anything, it's the opposite. It's the left that are the ones always using fear mongering as a means to get their points across. Global Warming anyone?

Gore and Suzuki are both idiots. Intensity is the only thing you can control directly. How do they propose to stop total usage, population control? What's next? Are they going to complain that we aren't doing enough to control the output of the sun?

I really wish all the parties and the media would just stop with this mudslinging and mock outrage. Let stick to the actual campaign platforms.

The Party that produced those ads no longer exists.

I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can say that the food companies have less interest in safety than the government or the public at large. A health scare like this is very bad for business. How do you think Maple Leaf is making out because of this? Do you think any other company ever wants this to happen to them?

40 year low, no, but it's definitely in sharp decline. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080717/d080717b.htm

The numbers are all documented here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/ridings...h_columbia.html Just click on the "2006 Results" tab for each one.

Everyone needs to deal with climate change, because climate changes all the time. A carbon tax does nothing to "deal" with climate change. Carbon tax is just a tax grab.

Not at all. A leader stands by his team. Previous PMs have been in similar positions, and always publicly defend their members. I absolutely would not expect Harper to fire Ritz over a joke, no matter how inappropriate that joke might be. Ritz, on the other hand, should take it as his personal duty to at least publicly resign as Minister of Agriculture.

We do have the right to fire them, every four years. Even sooner in a minority. This is a big reason why I think the Gerry Ritz situation is literally nothing. Parliament is dissolved, and an election is in progress. If people are that upset at him, they won't vote for him, simple as that. There's no reason Harper needs to do anything.

Have you been watching the election coverage at all? Global and CTV have been the most strident critics of the Conservatives. CBC's coverage has been significantly more balanced. Again, it's not a right vs. left issue. It's just controversy sells.

The PR system they were proposing in Ontario was a really bad idea. It results in less local representation, and bigger government. The PR MPs could be anyone on the list, so the party could appoint whomever they want, not who you vote for. Also, as much as you wanted the idea to happen so that the Greens could get in, are you prepared for other fringe parties you don't agree with to have seats in the house too? Keep in mind that if we had that same system in place federally, not only would the Greens have seats, so would Christian Heritage. If CHP has seats, then they get to be in the debate too, and it gets messier and messier. Even joke parties like the neorhino would have a real chance. Seriously, many people, given TWO votes, will vote one serious vote, and one joke/protest vote. The same thought process that would give the Greens an extra boost will also legitimize a slew of what would otherwise be "no chance in hell" parties. I used to think like you. I was a hard core Reform supporter (the only party I've ever sent money to and carried an actual card for). Back when we had one seat or less, I was crying for PR. I too thought that FPTP was totally unfair. Then we got 52 seats. That proved me wrong. It proved that the current system really does work if your party legitimately has the support you think it does.

Greens got less than 2% in Central Nova last time. Do you really think just May being there will get her that seat? I highly doubt it, especially since she's running against the Deputy Prime Minister. Guelph? 4th place. In all of BC, the Greens never finished better than 4th place last election. In some ridings they finished fifth behind independent or Christian Heritage candidates. They never broke the 10% support barrier, and even got less than 2% in many ridings. Perhaps you were thinking of a provincial election? I know the Greens came in second in Owen Sound in 2007.

The Conservatives are very much hoping that Dion will try to attack Harper's record on the environment.

What ridings do you see them being able to win? Every riding by riding poll I've seen has their regional support in the same range as their national support.

If/when the BQ becomes a non-entity, I hope we reform our official party status laws with Elections Canada. For a party to be allowed to get funding and take up room in the house, it should at least be mathematically possible for them to actually form a government.

That NDP ad is the most deliberately deceptive campaign ad I've ever seen on either side of the border. Playing to the ignorant indeed.

Coyne is being deliberately deceptive. He's counting tax cuts as spending. He's also counting the Conservatives actually following through on financial committments that the Liberals made as increased spending. He's also counting restoring cuts the Liberals made to healthcare, the military, and provincial transfer payments as increased spending. He's also counting debt repayment as increased spending. You can't just not pay your bills, and expect people to take you seriously when you brag about how much money you have saved up. When the next guy comes in and actually pays the bills, you can't bag on him for wasting the money you saved either.

I don't believe that it's that malicious. To me, it appears to be a much simpler motivation. We've seen this many times before, regardless of the who was on top. One candidate gets a big head start in the polls. There's not a compelling long term story there. If they can somehow damage the front runner's image, it creates a controversy that keeps the viewer/reader/listener's interest. A tight race sells more ink.

It really was funny. Inappropriate, sure, but funny as hell. Comment made in private a month ago, no story here, move on.