Neal.F.

As far as waging war on drugs goes, We should be taking a page from the CHINESE book. Send users to mandatory rehab, and send the dealers to the town garbage heap, with a bullet in the nape of the neck. But since we don't have the death penalty in canada, a life sentence with no possibility of parole would be warranted. These people are dangerous offenders.

AF, Banning those things may not be electorally popular but it is the RIGHT ( and to the right) thing to do. However, I agree with you that homosexuals ought to keep what they do behind closed doors. I don't like it when heteros are all over each other in public either. A bit of decorum is in order. If you have laws against sodomy, adultery and the like, you know that they cannot be enforced. the point is, having them on the books is a declaration by society that we have high standards, and these types of behaviour are not acceptable. By legalizing things like that we are in effect lowering the bar, instead of raising it.

Porn is harmful. It's not simply a "choice" . There's no "I'm OK , you're OK" It is the leading cause of marriage breakups. It causes people to be looked on as objects or receptacles, as opposed to human beings. It is degrading , and thus should be banned, and its purveyors face criminal charges. We, asa society ban or curtail many things that are considered harmful. Thgis shoudl be no different.... Oh...how clumsy of me!!!! IF porn is indeed a leading root cause of divorce, then OF COURSE the slimy lawyers that run this country don't want to ban something that keeps their brethren specialized in matters of divorce busy... and rich.

Banning porn is a great idea. Make it a criminal ofense to peddle porn, either by selling the filth in stores or online. While it is virtually impossible to stop internet porn, they can find out who is behind the sites, try them "in absentia" and ban them from doing business in the jurisdiction, and even entering therein. Drug dealers should be dealt with more harshly. As for killing the Trudeau charter of rights, GOOD. that thing has enabled the axis of civil libertarians, left wing special interests and trial lawyers to use the courts to trump elected officials, and is doing immense damage to the country. Alberta separation might fly, if the liberals (whether the be Liberals, PROGRESSIVE conservatives, or NDP) keep promoting immoral legislation.

the result of option one can be summed up in two words: LIBERALS FOREVER.

Pellaken, To call being pro-abortion and pro-homosexual "progressive" is a nisnomer if not complete bastardization of the word. "ar is Peace" Freedom is slavery" & "ignorance of strength come immediately to mind. Those types of policies are acually REGRESSIVE in the sense that they devalue the human being, and brings society backward to barabarism. The sooner they are cast into the trashcan of history, the better.

To my knowledge, the Liberals are the only party that forbids its members from belonging to any other federal political party. I knew a Libertarian who was a member of all the parties. Including the NDP ;-) He just wanted to go to all the meetings and influence them any way he could.

The decision to merge neds to be ratified by Dec 12th, so I don't see how the "shit heads" can mount an effective campaign against it by then. I suspect teh vote will be held sooner , rather than later just to offset such shenanigans. As i said it's hard to get people off their asses in terms of political activity, so I'm not terribly worried. Oftentimes the agitators are a small group in the grand scheme of things, who think they're bigger than they really are.

As long as the bulk of Atlantic members go, regardless of what Orchardistas or Jurassic Joe do, the Conservative Party is a done deal. Who cares about what Joe Clark has to say now. he's a has-been, who really, never was. He lasted 7 months as PM BECAUSE of his own pig-headedness. The same character trait cost him the leadership, which he never should have had to contest (But thankfully , he did) Then when he took over the remnants of the PC party in 1998 he stupidly refused to contest by-election after by election, and the Tories starting losing members, and finally slipped to below 8% in the polls before he finally got his act together......and held onto party status by 352 votes.... Then, just after the Nov. 2000 election, and the momentum that had started to build, he goes and grand-marshalls a gay pride parade... Brilliant move for someone purporting to lead a conservative party. He has said his piece, now he can ride off into the sunset and leave Calgary Centre for someone committed to building the future, not ressurrecting the past.

Did you see the Front page of the Globe today? "Clark Condemns Merger"!!! I posted exactly what he said in another thread. While he said he wants nothing to do with it, it was hardly a blistering condemnation. Besides, that's just Joe Clark is just showing more of the same poor judgement that characterized his entire carreer. The mitten-man strikes again. His stupid move in allowing the 1980 election to happen, to opening himself up to a leadership race against Mulroney that he didn't have to, to grand marshalling a gay pride parade. Typical Joe. What an ignominous end to a career. That said, internet polls are never to be trusted. It doesn't take much effort to alert everyone on your mailing list, if you have an agenda....or to clear your cookies and vote often.

ASs for the Orchardistas, I wouldn't lose any sleep over them. The real potential problem is Liberals who might buy up PC memberships in order to vote it down. If you know any such Liberals, bear in mind that the Liberal party's policy is that a member cannot concurrently hold a membership in any other Federal party. Such people should be PUBLICLY reported to the party so their memberships can be revoked. It is important that they be publicly exposed so the party will have to enforce the rule. One case where a membership was terminated on those grounds was when Doug Young, former member for Acadie-Bathurst bought a CA membership during the 2000 leadership campaign in order to support Stock Day. Nevertheless, historically such infiltration movements have never been successful. If they were Enza would have fared much better in the 2002 CA race, or alternately Liberals might have bought up Stock memberships en masse to make sure he'd win again. It is extremely difficult to get people excited about joining political parties in the first place, and also difficult to get them out to vote. Back in the '80s I was involved with a large association which boasted over 3000 members, and there was a hotly contested nomination. First was the Annual meeting which attracted no more than 70 people, then a couple of months later the nomination meeting happened, and needless to say more members had been signed up during the campaign, and a total of @ 1300 people voted on the first ballot, and it declined steadily for each subsequent one. . Also having served as president of a PC Association two years ago, (and my successor shared this with me yesterday) it is a thankless task . Only a handful of people ever respond and some treat you like a telephone salesperson, and rarely repley to e-mails! And these are people who actually plunked down their tenners to join!

Here is the text of Joe Clark's lrelease on the merger. I don't suspect that what he says will make much difference. Time has passed this old dinosaur by.... the crusty old captain would rather go down with the ship than to join his old shipmates in building a new and bigger vessel, one that can sink the HMS Liberal. Joe was never a real leader. He was no match for Mulroney. But to his credit , he served the country with great distinction as Foreign minster. Puts Bill Graham to shame. ------------ News Release For Immediate Release October 16, 2003 Statement by The Right Honourable Joe Clark, P.C., C.C., M.P. I have been asked to comment on the proposal announced today by Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper. Any Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has an obligation to take initiatives to make the Party more competitive. I commend my Leader, Peter MacKay, for his courage in taking this initiative, and his determination in negotiations with the Canadian Alliance. Now it is the responsibility of individual members of my Party to take decisions of our own. The proposed agreement would bring an end to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and create a new entity. That new entity might well prove more competitive in some constituencies, in some regions, in the next election. That could be the short-term gain. The long-term result would be to make Canadian politics less competitive, by closing down the only national Party whose base is broad enough to provide a genuine alternative to Liberal governments. This is about more than a name and a history. It is about a hard-won reputation as a Party that is both inclusive and pan-Canadian. Speaking personally, I cannot support a proposal which would close down that Party, and put at risk that reputation. -30-

OK Guys... where do i start? Joe Clark is going to (thankfully!!!!) ride off to the red tory retirement home. While congratulating Mssrs harper and macKay for their courage in putting together the deal, the salty old captain has decided to go down with the ship, rather than building a new bigger and and better vessel. I guess he liked being a big fish in a small pond. Another VERY influential tory who is in favour is John Crosbie, who, a short year ago decalred at the PC policy convention that he had come 3000 miles to help save the PC Party, not to bury it. Elsie Wayne is aboard as well. And that's a good thing. As for who will be leader... that is the $64 000 Question. the ball game has entered a new phase, and some heavy hitters are going to start to surface from both the political realm, and from business. Mssrs. harper and MacKay may not even be factors, and for all we know, both may decline to run. These two have set themselves up for the Premierships of their respective provinces. Mike Harris is reportedly going to decide this weekend whether he'll be in the race. Tom Long's name has surfaced, as has Tony Clement. Ralph Klein may want to cap off an enormously successful public life by becoming PM. I would not rule out Gordon Campbell either. Bernard Lord will come under pressure, but I tend to believe that he can be counted on to remain at the helm in New Brunswick. remember, this time, the boys will be playing for high stakes. The brass ring itself is within the grasp of the winning candidate, so serious money and organizations need to be at hand, since there is no time to cobble one together from nothing. This is going to be a highly publicized, and very interesting to the general public race, so it needs to be professional. Therefore the candidates will need to be well connected with those who control the purse strings on Bay Street, on the Bow, and in other centres such as vancouver, Montreal and Winnipeg. Serious money, and serious backing will be needed. There are no serious candidates from Quebec. Jean Charest is out for one reason only. He can hardly walk out of the Premier's office a mere six months into his first term. While I believe Brian Mulroney can loosen the purse strings of the Montreal business community, there are, to my knowledge, no serious well-known Tory activist players left in Quebec. Most businesspeople here who are politically active are Liberals, for obvious reasons. That may change again, but not in time.

Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." - Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)

It can't be stressed enough.

Actually, no. We won't be revisting this. The PC party will not survive the Martin juggernaut, and MacKay's name will live on in Canaddian political infamy. But the CA will NOT be a contender for power on its own, and will emerge all the weaker for the 2008 election with a steep hill to climb. What's more, if Martin is a one term PM as many suggest he will be, there is a very real possibility that he will be succeeded by a westerner...one Ralph Goodale. Now won't THAT put the CA in a good position...NOT. It's merge or die. Who likes the sound of these words? ONE PARTY RULE.

Peter MacKay seems to be playing Yasir Arafat's role, if we liken this merger dance to the peace talks of 2000. In those talks, Israeli PM Ehud Barak had agreed to meet 97% of ArabRat's demands. It seems here that Mr. Harper has gone nearly so far with Peter MacKay. If MacKay does not sign on the dotted line now, he will be seen the same way as Yasir ArabRat is now seen: as someone who never really wanted peace, who did not come to the table in good faith. The question now, is does Mr. MacKay want to come ton a deal that would allow a vibrant , new Conservative party to come into being that might actually give the martin MAchine a run for its money next time, or does he actually think that he can have 100% of what he wanted: The CA to fold, and fall in line under the PROGRESSIVE Conservative banner? (of course, under his wise leadership...) I think at this pont, if he balks, he and his PROGRESSIVES will be written off by the public. The CA will be in a better position , but hurt nonetheless. However, they'll live to fight another day.

That's nothing new.... You have to pass a pomposity test before they'll give you a Liberal Membership Card! They're a bit like the Freemasons in that they even have degrees of membership ranging from slightly arrogant to conceited to narcissistic to pompous ass!

If Mr Harper plays his cards right, and doesn't EVER play the obstructionist, and Peter Pumpkin-eater keeps playing the fool, there might be a reluctant shift to the Alliance, but certianly not the seismic shift that is needed to change the whole dynamc. At minimum, Harper needs to score a handful of members in the Atlantic. If he can succeed in that, not only does he kill the PC party once and for all by robbing them of party status, but he effectively silences all the Red Tories like Clark, Borotsik, Bachand and Brison as they are consigned to the status of independent. What an ignominous end for a career such as Joe Clark who once sat in the PMO, and was a Very prominent Cabmin in the Mulroney govt. What's MacKay worried about? The handful of Red Tories that won't come along? Is he worried that he'll be a mere MP, while Brison leads the charge of the light brigade?

This came out early in the week, and is encouraging...Even with no leader, the Conservative Party comes in at 32, higher than the PC/CA vote today combined. All it'll take is a 10% swing, and it's a brand new ball game. Note how the Liberal spin doctors tried to play it down by sneeringly declaring "even a united right is no match for Martin"

I think Harper has indeed called the bluff. And that the bluff will be the coup-de-grace for the PC party... but I also think that unless those Tories who see the writing on the wall get on board and cross to the CA, they will go down with the ship, and the CA itself mauy not really gain out of this. However if they cross, then I think the dynmaic has indeed shifted.

Totally agreed.... My mind's eye has also conjured up pre-election ads that say "Peter Mackay...Not up to the job..." ;-) That said, it is crucial that should the Reds exert too much pressure on MacKay and he balks, I hope that at least 4 Atlantic Tories DO cross the floor, and put a final end to the farce, so that all attenetion and energy can be devoted to promoting the real conservative alternative, so that Canadians can "choose change" .

I could not agree with you more Gugsy, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, MAcKay has so badly damged his own creidbility that he actually stands to lose some members such as those you named, Mssrs. Casey, Barnes and Hearn. Possibly a few more as well, when the see the writing on the wall. Who cares about the Red Tories anyway? Why does a conservative party want members who support gay marriage, abortion and other such liberla causes? They are a liability. all it takes is for 4 Tories to join the Alliance, and the PC caucus loses party status....the only bright spot is that they will not be 5th party... they just won't BE a party. Their delusions are beyond belief. They have a massive debt, which the new party would retire (from Alliance funds) with a merger. Without a merger, they'll fight the next election with one hand behind tied behind their backs again. Fortunately for them, it will be their last one as they go the way of Social Credit. And they will. Even though I disagree very strongly with joe Clark on just about every social issue, he lent the party a measure of credibility, which is something peter MacKay cannot do. As it stands today, Bay street and other donors have turned off the taps to both parties, until they can work out a merger. If they get it together, we have a contest. If not, the PCs are certainly doomed to oblivion and the Alliance will be left a shadow of its former self. However, if Peter pumpkin-eater keeps playing silly games, and 3-4 PC members from downeast DO cross the floor and thelp form a new "Conservative" Party, it would show that they are the clear alternative on the right, the money taps just might be turned on, with respect to how Harper and his people have handled things, and the fact that the party would have a beachhead in the east. However, the best scenario does remain that a deal is struck as per the discussions of the last few weeks. Less messy. Let Joe Clark retire, and Bachand, Brison, borotsik me in a party that favours gay marriage and abortion. That will add up to 10 new members and ONE common front for the next election.

These Tories seem to like being big fish in a small pond. And there is a wind named Martin about to blow over the land that will leave the pond dry with 15 fish writhing on dry land gasping for life, which they will not find. And I remain convinced that the result of failure will mean an even larger Liberal majority that may not be unseated for generations, if ever... "after all, who else is there to vote for?" MacKay will then have the distinction of being an even worse leader than Kim Campbell.

Here we have a case in Illinois where a woman Murdered her baby and got away with it . The baby was born, and she killed it before the umbelical cord was severed. This is the result of a woman's "choice" . Whatever happened to responsibility for one's actions. You sleep with someone, you are aware that the risk of pregnancy is present. Should one then have the right to escape those consequences at the price of an innocent life...someone else's. I was put up for adoption by a 16 year old who had the courage and morals to live up to her responsibilities, and I can tell you as a longtime pro-life advocate that there are more people who want to adopt children than there are children available for adoption. How do you explain the thousands of Canadians heading to China every year to adopt? The answer can be found in garbage bags behind Morgentaler's charnel houses....in sales of saline solution.... And yes, there are people who do adopt HIV positive , crack addicted children..... they do so out of Christian love and compassion..to give these children the possibility of knowing love, and Jesus Christ. Abortion is the wilful taking of another's life. It is murder, plain and simple and should be treated as such. I mean Jail terms for abortionists.