Newfie Canadian

With all due respect Argus, I'm not with you here. It was Hoon (British Minister of Defense) who first shot off the first salvo in the public blame game by saying it was a buyer beware situation. It was in poor taste and poor timing, as Lt. Saunders wasn't even buried yet. Now on top of that, our close friends the Brits want us to pay for the rescue effort, after selling us these apparent lemons. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1098054417038_2 He had to publicly open the compensation issue, as Hoon tried to close it. It is also a case of international diplomacy versus domestic politics. The opposition parties are screaming murder over this, and the public isn't far behind. In regards to the US, they have done very little to ease tensions in the last few years. Now I'm not saying Chrétien helped, but he wasn't solely responsible. Neither is Martin.

Hi scriblett. Here's a link to the statcan page that has a table outling the debt from 1999 to 2003. http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/govt03.htm

It's the same thing every few years. I don't know what they think has changed. They don't want to give up the ghost that's for sure.

Well, NATO was created as a defensive alliance against the threat posed by communism in the form of the USSR and its satelites. Think about it for a second. The UN wouldn't be of any use in regards to military action because the security council is made up of vetoes from both sides of a potential conflict. NATO gave the western powers the option of forgoing the UN in military matters. Plus, it made sense to have a western alliance to oppose the eastern block.

They could be right, but as you point out wth beef, lumber and I might add wheat, their track record hasn't been sparkilng. Which reminds me, the US is going to appeal the softwood ruling by an international panel. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...097706163746_77

Censorship is a slippery slope, but necessary at times. Look at the recent beheading videos. I assume it was the networks that censored them as opposed to the government. But look at the CRTC decision for allowing Al Jazeera into Canada. Among other things, it says : http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/20...004/r040715.htm I agree with this decision, even though it is censorship of a kind.

I agree with caesar. I don't think women consider politics a side interest. Unfortunately, it sdoesn't look like there will be a female running things in Canada for a while. The only one close is Mclellan, and she'll never get the job. Layton is new so he won't be going anywhere anytime soon, plus female NDP leaders haven't had stellar performances as party leaders. I leave the Bloc out as they can't form the government. The Conservatives. I don't know if Stronach would take another shot at it, and she'd have to be better at controlling candidates than Harper was. I don't know of any other high profile conservatives.

Still seems a bit far fetched and voodoo like for me. "A human lie detector". Give me good old-fashioned detective work anytime. As far as I am concerned, it's the feeling that some people think that another person is lying that causes wrongful convictions and prosecutions.

Looks like relations between the US and Canada are about to get a little more strained because of apparent US protectionism. Over hogs of all things. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...964/?hub=Canada

To reiterate the point I made in the last post, here's an article from Fox (I know ) that points out what I said. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135545,00.html

If memory serves, that's what happened in Bosnia. Clinton couldn't or didn't get support from the UN so NATO went in. Bosnia and area is a NATO operation, SFOR.

This is a great example of the slippery slope. Ban pitbulls. Then ban rottweilers. Then ban dobermans. Then ban German Shepherds. But wait a second, German Shepherds are police dogs and seeing eye dogs. Now I'm not saying that pitbulls, rottweilers and dobermans aren't dangerous, any dog can be dangerous, and steps should be taken to limit the danger. The problem here is the people that own them. Blame them, not the dogs.

The feds are just racking in the money. On track for another surplus.

Change isn't going to happen until all Conservatives realize that to get eelcted they have to be more of a centrist party. It was the right wing comments from a couple of Conservative candidates that really hurt them in the last election. The bilingualism comments cost them all hope in Quebec (if they had any) and probably cost them in New Brunswick, where the Liberals took 7 seats, the Conservatives 2 and the NDP 1. I'm not opposed to change in Ottawa. I think the Liberals have become arrogant and complacent, but the NDP is too left and the Conservatives are too right, as they stand now. Maybe after the convention.

The problem there is the Atlantic Accord was signed in 1985, and it's William's contention that the feds haven't been abiding by it. Equalization, which is what the meeting is about, may very well be the straw that breaks the premier's backs. As I understand it, all provinces will be getting more in equaliztion, as per a promisse in the election. The 2 provinces in question, NL and NS, would not get their equlization payments clawed back because they get the revenues from their offshore oil.

March, 2005. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...licy040908.html

I've read some of the posts in this thread (not all). Do we really need another 24 hr/day American news channel? I have cable TV. Currently, I have access to 48 channels. 5 of those are local advertising, channel guide, that sort of thing with no programming. 24 of those are specialty channels, sports, kids, religious, music, etc. That leaves 17 channels. Out of that 17, 3 are Canadian news/political channels. Newsnet, Newsworld and CPAC. That leaves 14 channels for regular programming. Out of that 14, 8 are American channels. I bring all this up because right now the 3rd Presidential debate is on. Out of 14 channels that have regular programming on them, the debate is on 8. It took me that long to figure this out that I forgot where I was going with it. I think it was something like we get enough of the American perspective as it is. I know it is a news channel, and I've stated elsewhere that I like the news items from Fox (for the most part), it's the commentary that goes off course. I don't know. It's late and I'm tired and I may just be rambling.

That's what it says here, 5th paragraph. http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2004...lus_101204.html

I agree August. It is hard to believe that the Grits would be ahead of the Bloc in Quebec so soon after getting pasted by them in the election. On the other hand, the PQ has been raising the sovereignty issue a lot in the last few months, and it may not be sitting too well with many. That is just a theory though.

I have always believed that they were, and are.

So much for provincial solidarity against the feds. Before the meeting later this month with Martin on equalization, 3 premiers held a separate meeting of their own that has my premier concerned. http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/Vie...emiers_20041013

I wouldn't call Harper a "neanderthal leader", but he had the misfortune of having some candidates shoot off their mouths enough to scare some center, center-left voters that he may have otherwise had. A policy convention before the election may have helped. I suspect the polls will get better for the Conservatives after the House has been in session for a while. If after a couple or 3 months the polls stay the same or get better for the Liberals, Harper may want to start looking for a new job.

Goodale, Manley, Martin; take your pick.

I've always thought of using the surplus to pay down the debt as a dodge for doing something real.

Looks like RB is right on the money, pardon the pun. I didn't know it was a law though. That sounds like a Chretien/Martin thing.