Bob

Well, this phenomenon wouldn't happen all of a sudden, and the market would respond by adding more homes to the available supply to hit a new equilibrium. I also think the amount of household income gained by a second income would typically surpass the extra costs added to homes based on this increased demand you're assuming would happen. Anyways, I think the important thing to realize here is that women who don't avoid the workforce because of their children, generally speaking. We don't have plenty of female professionals sitting on unemployment because they can't afford daycare for their children. This promise is simply an attempt to buy votes from the poor. How's that?

It's not relevant because it's already an old story. Moreover, the story illustrates the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party and the NDP, given how they attacked Harper because of the allegations (even though he got rid of her) and then attacked Harper FOR getting rid of her. It's just empty drama without relevance to the election. The CBC is clearly committed to stupid journalism.

Are you voting Liberal because of Ignatieff, the Liberal Party's policies, or because of your local Liberal MP?

I think the "Big National Daycare" appeals to a specific type of woman - the type that has more children than she can afford. I would hope that intelligent and reasonable minded women such as yourself would be able to see through this attempt to buy votes by promising yet another unaffordable entitlement. Basically, Ignatieff wants to bankrupt the country in order to get elected.

Betsy, my sentiments exactly. This is why the story is irrelevant. If it was reported on honestly by the CBC, the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party and the NDP would be revealed to those Canadians that don't have either the time, the will, or the ability to follow these events. Strangely, the CBC seems to be trying to imply that this Guergis-story is indicative of something bad on behalf of the CPC or Harper and his cabinet. Anyways, it's the usual fare - garbage from the CBC and no real honest journalism. I wish Harper had some guts and made the CBC an election issue.

To France and Italy, Libya's oil exports are of huge importance.

If the media focuses on the Guergis case, and particularly if it present this case in an anti-Harper/anti-CPC manner, then it'll be just another example pro-Liberal/anti-Conservative bias in our media. The story is irrelevant, and it'd be nice to see some honest journalism (don't even say it...) that investigates statements and positions and platforms, and compares them to actions (or previous contradictory statements and positions and platforms) and to reality.

None of the things you mentioned above bother me. The detainee issue was a fake controversy, and actually made me despise the the opposition, not the minority government. The contempt they showed for the Canadian military was really low. The same is true for the proroguing. The Guergis problem reflects well on the Harper government when it is viewed honestly. One question for you, though, what "questionable financial dealings" are you talking about? There are legitimate beefs to be had with the Harper government, but they're not the Liberal/NDP talking points you're using in the OP.

That's not really relevant, right? Is a political party only permitted to remove members when the RCMP find evidence of criminal behaviour? I'm sure the RCMP has trouble finding a lot of finding, by the way. That doesn't sound far-fetched. Anyways, the hypocrisy of anti-CPC partisans shows with this case. Initially, the accusations against Guergis were used to attack the CPC with a "guilt-by-association" type of thing. Then, after she was given the boot, there were attacks against the CPC for unfairly kicking her out. See what I mean?

I disagree. And I don't want to get into it. It's considered true because of a simplistic and absolutist belief in majority will ("democracy"). It's particularly aggravating for me to hear it with respect to Israel - constant attacks about the "international community" condemning Israel for this or for that. 99.9% of the time, those critics aren't sure what they're opposing or why, but have a faith in the UN and other "international" institutions, so they go along with the criticisms. Let's get down to the nitty gritty to analyze something, and not take a position simply because it's popular. I still don't think Harper will defer as much as Ignatieff would. And yes, I realize how Harper's recent actions illustrate the very thing I can't stand about Ignatieff. You're certainly right, however, Harper did defer to the UN with respect to Libya, albeit in a relatively limited way. It was still wrong of him to do so, though.

For sure. I'm certainly not going to trust the likes of Anderson Cooper et al. I am certain that the political situation in Libya, like almost everywhere else, is exceedingly complicated. Five-minute sound bytes from "on-the-scene" Anderson Cooper certainly doesn't make me feel enlightened about what's really going on over there. Maybe the "rebels" are in-line with our values, and maybe they're not. I sincerely believe that even our best sources, to whom only our leadership have access (intelligence reports, etc), are also clueless about what's really going on. I don't think for a second that Obama or Harper or Clegg have strong intelligence on what's going on, either. I remember reading several books which convinced me that intelligence services in the West are light-years behind contemporary problems - for example, barely having any field offers that are able to work in the Middle East. The intelligence organizations are filled with John Doughs and not Muhammad Bin-Al Shibs, if you catch my drift.

I still don't understand why you can't reconcile yourself to the fact that Canada, the USA, and a handful of other countries, while not morally pure, are in a completely different moral category than nations such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, or the majority of the world's states (and peoples). This is true by any moral barometer. Other than that, I agree with your post - especially the idea that military actions sanctioned by the UN are inherently legitimate (or are more legitimate) while non-UN-sanctioned military actions aren't legitimate (or are less legitimate). I don't give a damn what irrelevant nations and/or their governments proclaim. It's sad that Ignatieff seems not to recognize this, or to think that Canadians haven't considered these issues carefully and that he can win votes through towing the internationalist rhetoric (much like Obama, by the way). This directly ties in to Ignatieff (and I think Layton is also guilty of this) denigrating Canada's reputation in front of Canadians by making ridiculous statements such as Canada needing to "regain its position" in the world. As if Canada doesn't enjoy a strong reputation worldwide, and as if that reputation matters anyways. Are Canadian leaders to compromise Canadian interests because someone in Scandinavia or Iraq might hold an opposing view? He was just taking a line out of the Democratic/Obama playbook which suggested that Obama would make America more "respected" in the world after the Bush years, when America was especially trashed by much of the anti-American press around the world. Excuse me, Mr. Ignatieff, you're running for leadership in Canada, not to win a popularity contest around the world. If you're unable to stand up for Canadian interests when they invariably come into conflict with the interests/opinions of others around the world, perhaps you're not meant to be Prime Minister.

Our "interests" are to defer to European pressures, because the EU consumes 80% of Libya's oil exports. While doing so, Harper will ride the spin of saying that we're fighting for the "freedom of the Libyan people", without knowing the first thing about who exactly these "rebels" are, and accepting the mainstream media's reporting of these people as "freedom fighters". It's ridiculous.

Harper ousted Guergis before any media scandal, and kept her out, as opposed to defending her to the bitter end and covering up for her alleged actions in order to protect the party from guilt-by-association attacks. The Guergis story is an example of a party properly cleansing itself of trouble, as opposed to lying about it in an attempt to save face.

Actually, the whole affair is an example of a political party ousting a troublesome and scandal-ridden member when discovering evidence of wrongdoing. As opposed to a political party defending one of its own to the bitter end. This story is an example that reflects well on Harper and the Conservative Harper, despite attempts to spin it as something else. Do you need examples of political scandals from other parties in the no-so-distant past that illustrate cover-ups and lies in order to hide misdeeds of one of their own from the public?

And I believe it should be decided on by the executive.

That's not true, that is an example of Harper playing politics with our military - albeit on a small scale. Harper could have, and should have, said no to Libyan-involvement. In other words, Canada didn't have to participate, but Harper deferred to UN (American and European, specifically) pressure. This is obviously ironic and likely hypocritical from the Harper government.

A reasonable position would be as follows: Canada will do what's right and protect our interests where justifiable and necessary - and that the UN is not the arbiter of what is right and justifiable towards our interests. In events where Canada is faced with the decision of whether or not to engage foreign actors militarily, Canada will do what it reasonably can to make its case to the UN if it so chooses to utilize its military, but in the end the UN will not determine Canada's actions - Canada will determine its own actions. The UN does not govern or supersede Canada, contrary to what many amateur legalists seem to think. What Ignatieff is doing, and he's right to be called on it, is appealing to the internationalist component of his base, who have an ignorant/religious belief in the UN, without being aware of how this broken institution actually operates. Another thing he is doing is subtly trying to reawaken the anti-American sentiment among some of his supporters, who often used false portrayals of Bush as a unilateralist (which he was not), by distinguishing himself as a leader who "plays by the rules"(otherwise known as deferring to the political pressure of our enemies). Perhaps he was staking out this hollow position in an attempt to portray Harper as a "Bush-style unilateralist", without giving thought to how this position actually harms him when placed under simple scrutiny exposing hypocrisy and shortsightedness. For me personally, nothing frightens me more than such positions. Canada must never defer to the UN, and must always lead and zealously move forward towards her own interests. Canada should lead, and not follow. It was completely unsurprising to read Ignaiteff's statements, as it's clear what ideological image he is trying to build for himself and what types of Canadians he is trying to appeal to.

The not-so-simple solution is to destroy those people that murder others because of a sick sense of entitlement: that others should respect and submit to their religious values. The types of people that went on the murder spree at the UN base in Afghanistan using the Terry Jones stunt as an excuse must be destroyed.

I'm not really familiar with his writings prior to his arrival/return to Canada to pursue politics, but assuming you're right, it would certainly explain a lot. He reminds me a lot of Mitt Romney, in that sense - a man who doesn't seem to be himself. It's as if he's acting the way he think his supporters want him to act? It almost makes him a Liberal Party caricature. On the other hand, I often believe that he believes in what he's saying. Either way, I strongly dislike Ignatieff in his current form.

I sure hope not. I really don't want to think about Ignatieff at the helm with that coalition.

I think Bob Rae is as strong of a candidate as Ignatieff. They both have what I would consider fatal flaws, though. Both of them lack integrity, respect for their opponents, and vision - all based on deep partisanship and being slaves to the worst parts of their base. Perhaps they underestimate themselves and their own constituencies, and have such a deep fear of ever saying something that might be misinterpreted by their supporters as giving even marginal support to the Conservatives. They're both terrified to go outside party/ideological lines. From a personal perspective, I greatly dislike both of them because I greatly dislike traditional Liberal Party political positions, which both Ignatieff and Rae seem to almost exclusively advocate for.

You really think that's what's going to happen?

Can you elaborate on that? I remember you talking about this in some depth a long time ago, but I completely forget your arguments. Feel free to copy-and-paste old posts of yours if you can find them. I'd like to see why you think this is true.

Actually, let's revisit this post of yours. Why are you questioning my familiarity with Quebec? Why don't you get straight to the point? Do you agree that Quebec constitutes a separate nation within Canada? If you do, are there other separate nations in Canada? And if you do think Quebec is a separate nation, do you believe they have a right to independence? Do other nations have the same right to independence within Canada? Clearly you distinguish between Quebecers and Canadians, and I'd like to know why. Do near 50% votes in the two referendums support your position?