Choke

These aren't new nukes though, these are anti-nuke defensive weapons. Do you object to soldiers wearing helmets too?

Not to me. Transportation is a more basic necessity than healthcare, if you can't get to the hospital, it becomes pretty useless. Furthermore, people's personal choices, like whether to smoke or eat unhealthy food or not will not affect the cost of the RAV line. The pride and the glory. If local companies were able to compete price-wise, this wouldn't be a problem. For them to compete, we need to get rid of unions and labour standards, or withdraw from the global economy and introduce high tariffs. I figured as much, but he needed a reminder, this has nothing to do with Iraq.

I know what you were saying, but I was trying to illustrate there's more than one side to it. In 1990 Iraq had the 4th largest military after the USA, USSR, and UK. I think that the difference is that Iraq took aggressive action, but in an odd turn of events, Saddam held onto power after being defeated and shunned by the world. It would be as if Hitler invaded Poland and was immediately routed, but left in power while the German people starved due to sanctions.

Got to love thread-jacking. If you want to discuss that issue, use the appropriate thread.

From the article you posted: That's the only difference, the interceptors are ground-based. Wouldn't it be better to have a system that could end the threat of nuclear war forever? This could make the worst weapons of mass destruction ever known to mankind irrelevant. So, it's already happened and yet the world hasn't come to an end. Other countries don't like it because they don't want to spend the money, but I think a guarantee that nukes won't be used in war is worth it.

Harper isn't so sure about it either apparently. http://www.politicswatch.com/harper-dec2-2004.htm

Why do you think Martin supports it? Do you think he's Bush's puppet? Why then aren't we sending troops to Iraq? Wouldn't that be as supposedly unpopular as BMD?

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

I view that as a positive thing. But the issue at hand is whether he's extreme or not. We can't afford a better system. Unless you want to jack up taxes on regular people to pay for it. Otherwise you could try to tax corporations and the wealthy...and they'll move out of province. Not enough. Welfare should be abolished. Pensions for those that absolutely need them are good IMO, and employment insurance for those that lose their jobs, but paying into an abyss like welfare is simply an exercise in futility. If they didn't save money for retirement, that isn't my problem. We put more into transfer payments than we get out, I'd like to opt out of that system entirely. I think I'm gonna get a bumper sticker made "Campbell's Cuts, Not Deep Enough!" and another one that says "Olympics Before Welfare".

Yeah, Saddam Hussein.

What's his IQ? What's Martin's? What's Harper's? What's Duceppe's? If you want to claim he's the smartest, back it up. I think mabye Layton should be prosecuted for hate crimes against Americans. Often it is not very controlled, but Blair is such a baby and will just talk over the boos instead of sitting down and crying. No, I don't think they rose to power on the back of the "boo". In Taiwan they have fist-fights in the legistlature without it threatening democracy.

People act as though this was the first ever pre-emptive attack in the history of man. But no, it has happened before thousands of times and will continue to happen. Furthermore, I supported the war and continue to do so, for one reason, sanctions. The sanctions were killing Iraqis at a rate of around 50,000 per year, so if this war killed another 100,000 in the last couple of years, that's actually not any worse, and there is now hope that whether the Americans succeed or fail in Iraq, the sanctions won't be there to continue killing people.

If I was talking to someone and they started talking about weapons in space and how evil that is, I would tell them they were being ridiculous. If they were obnoxious about it, like Layton is, I'd tell them to shut up. I would expect my member of parliament to represent the feelings of his constituents, which in this case would be best accomplished by booing. However, if somebody decided to punch him, I'd be for that too.

I think that anything the Conservatives can do to make Layton shut up is worth the effort, if booing accomplishes it, so be it.

Since when are we required to tolerate ridiculous behaviour?

The US government knows what's really going on, but accentuating the negative doesn't win votes, as evidenced by Kerry's loss.

Campbell the man, not the Liberal party. I mean I wouldn't mind a new leader for the Liberals.

If that environics poll is right, then it shouldn't take more than a couple decades for things to swing back the other way, if the Conservatives can mount a really good PR campaign.

I don't really care about Campbell either way, he can stay or go, but I don't want the NDP to win.

Which hasn't been breached or something would've been done about it.

I always vote for the party who I think will do the most good for the most people, I think of the good of everyone, then make a decision, don't you?

I hope that book ban succeeds, it'd show that conservatives can still win some legal battles in the liberal west.

I'm a clever one, I am.

Me too, I'll be one of the ordinary people volunteering for the Liberals. It isn't in their interest as human beings to vote NDP. The NDP drives jobs away and racks up debt in the process. The CAW has a contract with the NDP. That's what I was referring to. No, the NDP's fiscal policies are pretty moderate and that's how they get votes outside Vancouver and Victoria, while in the cities, the people are pretty left-wing socially and that's how they win votes there. I think that the Liberals are moderately right wing fiscally. They haven't gotten rid of universal healthcare, or welfare, or even prescription drug coverage. They could have done all those things, but they didn't. I think they're moderate socially. I think Trudeau liberals are NDPers with tact.

I believe in letting the majority rule, and they can rule that Layton should shut up. I think he's going to have to tell Layton he's fired. Yeah, like Layton, what the hell is wrong with him anyway?