RNG

Libby Davis? Enough said.

You are all skirting the fact that supposedly, two days ago he was saying that the feds could declare that an X% majority would be needed to "win". And after all the Quebec provincial parties dumped on him he folded like a two-buck suitcase. Way to go, Happy Jack!

The way I read the story, the problem is that his statement two days ago implied that he felt the feds could set what percentage yes vote was needed to trigger action. That's yer problem!

I really think the NDP will lose it's Quebec support over the next four years. And who will they turn to? That is one of the key questions. And if the Ontario fear of the NDP is lessened, can the Liberals make a significant comeback? Wish I had a time machine and could fast forward to see what happens in 2015.

Serious question. Have you ever seen a poll on this subject? Edit. Never mind. Wiki has a list of polls. The change from 2002 to 2010 is pretty surprising. I guess I am in the minority here.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the "facts" you are presenting. It's just that monarchist don't think they are of any significance. What are you so worked up about, or do you just debate because it's fun?

And that does not bother many of us.

That is a hypothetical that is so incredibly unlikely to be suggested or attempted by any political party as to not deserve any consideration. Hell, even the Reform, at their inception never suggested that.

My comment was related to any and all entitlement programs, but yes, it would include health care. It always amazes me both on this forum and on the US one I frequent how entrenched and closed-minded so many people are if anyone suggests even looking at the prevailing health care system, let alone modifying it in any way. I should buy more tinfoil stock.

I've often said, there are many disadvantages to giving a government a 7 year mandate, but this is one advantage IMO. More safety in doing unpopular things in that there is more time for their worth to show. We are on a 4/5 year cycle here and the US effectively are on a two year cycle.

Apparently all of the Quebec provincial parties immediately dumped on Layton for his initial comments. They all interpreted it to mean he was suggesting the federal government had the right to arbitrarily say there must be an X% yes vote for the measure to be validated. Now he is backing off but I guess there is still grumbling in Quebec. The title of this post is the headline from the CBC story (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/26/quebec-reaction-layton-referendum.html). From CTV (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20110526/layton-quebec-110526/) What say you Quebecers and interested parties.

I am really hoping that Harper will have the courage to make big cuts right now. Hopefully, between our debt/deficit situation improving along with improvement in the world's economy, things won't be so bad for them come the next election.

As has been discussed, the Libs balanced the budget by raping EI and CPP. As has been discussed, Harper unfortunately got the reins (of a minority) just as one of the worst world wide economic downturns of recent time happed. And as has been discussed here, Harper was against stimulus spending but the Libs and NDP forced it on Canada. But don't let facts disturb your ideology.

On what basis do you say Israel is forced to fight with both hands tied behind their back? It seems to me, with all the arms support the US gives Israel, not to mention the political backing, they have a significant advantage. (I hate the Palestinians as much. They are both totally wrong IMHO.)

So you are saying they are their own group more so than Shiites and Sunni's?

The Kurds are still Arab and not Persians, right?

Which has absolutely no relevance to my post. I'm talking about the "age" of aircraft that should be measured in terms of air hours and numbers of take-offs/landings, rather than calendar age. Apples and gorillas.

And see my opinion above.

People just don't get it. It's hours, not years from production.

The point I was trying to make, and not just for debating points as you seem to be going for, is that a non-political head of state is worth more to me than it costs me. Your system, as I have said before has the flaw that criticizing your president could be equated to criticizing your country. I can bad-mouth Harper, but he is just my PM, he doesn't represent Canada, like the Queen does.

Doesn't Shrub Jr. ring a bell? And our "head of state", the Queen or King, are total figureheads. So that is a very insignificant fact. I'm for us retaining the monarchy, but as a symbol. Ronald McDonald or the Burger King would do as well.

A significant difference as I see it though, is that religion of candidates in Canada isn't that important, and in fact, as was said could be a hindrance. In the US, the religious stance of candidates is of way more significance. That Henry VIII or whoever wanted to bang other broads so schism-ed with the Catholic church doesn't really have much impact on our lives or political thoughts. Whereas it appears to me from the news media I frequent, and from the tone of a US political forum I frequent is that being a fundie will help you if you are a Rep, and hurt you if you are a Dem. In a big way.

This isn't an "in your face" query, but where is this list from? I sort of mostly agree purely anecdotally but wonder if you have references or anything like that.

It was purely a joke mocking the supposed rapture on May 21 that has now been delayed to Oct 21.

Is this an Arab trait or Muslim? It seems to me for all the bitching the Afghans do about NATO activities killing civilians, how many have the Taliban killed? All those areas are so tribal, and they all hate each other. I don't have enough history knowledge to figure out how the Muslims conquered up to half of Spain in the day. But it's been all downhill since.