PocketRocket

How many politicians does it take to change a light bulb??? Well, that sort of depends on the party.... BLOC: We want our OWN light bulb with an independant power supply, but we can still use the Canadian dollar to pay for the power. LIBERAL: Well, if we hire some advertising companies and give them lots of money, then we can convince people that the old bulb's not really blown. CONSERVATIVE: That old light bulb was a whore and a dipstick. NDP: If you give us more money for social spending, we'll vote to keep the old bulb in place. GREEN: Can we get an energy-efficient lightbulb???

Umm......ever check out any American forum sites??? Most commonly the shoe is on the other foot. Republicans most often accuse Democrats of being "un-American" or "anti-American", but I've also seen the reverse quite often.

Thanks, PAT, that was wonderfully entertaining. Gee, I wonder why??? I think I would find Coulter attractive, if I was an illiterate deaf-mute.

I have to agree with CANUCK and a few others here. Rake Fletcher across the coals a few times, get the official, and sincere, apology, and let him move on. You never know, maybe he'll actually learn something from this. If not, then he'll remain the same as many other ignorant MP's on both sides of the house. This trend towards unacceptable behaviour in public speech is not limited to one party. Sad, but true.

Not to mention that it would raise the average IQ level in Parliament.

Is it just me, or does the present batch of Conservatives have a distinct propensity for putting their foots in their mouths??? Harper's done it. Fletcher this time. Runcimen calling Belinda.ca (hats off to Kimmy) a "dipstick". Others I can't recall at the moment. Whatever happened to statesmanship and diplomacy???

On this occasion, and on many others, Harper chose to speak before thinking, causing him to try moderate his comments retrospectively. What is to make us think he will not also ACT without thinking, as he does in speaking??? I believe the man is intelligent, no question of that, but he is rash. A loose cannon.

That may or may not be the case. But in politics, you need to be more than honest. Unfortunately, you must also be saleable. If the Cons had someone who APPEARED to be more reasonable and less inflammatory, I'd probably vote for them. But Harper strikes me as extreme. I don't like extremists. Again, it's all about perception. That is how people see Harper, and that's all the reason they need. Well, that depends on two things. One is whether an individual is such a sheep that he'll vote for someone based on the thoughts of others. Second is whether an individual considers a party with thousands of members and hundreds of representatives, to be corrupt because of the actions of a few people within that party. I do not happen to be one of these people. But, like I said earlier, I will not vote for a party led by Harper. Put Preston Manning in charge, and you'll get my vote. I have no doubt about the man's intelligence. You don't get voted into party leadeship by being stupid. Someone with TOO many principles, however, scares me a bit. When your personal principles are so strong, you can be perceived as having your own agenda, which is exactly what seems to be happening. His forte leans more towards extreme hyperbole. He has, on a few occasions, chosen his words badly when criticizing PMPM et al. That has worked against him. Again, you're painting all the folks in the Liberal party with the same brush. I don't believe everyone in the party had some sort of secret vote to agree to rip off the country. SOME liberals are corrupt, just as SOME Conservatives are hard-headed. As for the "criminal", well, charges have yet to be laid. I think the problem lay elsewhere to a larger degree. In discussions prior to past elections, I have so often heard the phrase "To vote for (fill in the blank, as long as it's NDP, Green, Reform or any smaller party) is to waste your vote, because they'll never get elected". So many people think that way. It's like thair mind frame is set around the mistaken belief that your vote is only useful if the recipient of your vote wins. Nothing could be further from the truth. Each and every vote sends a message. But, unfortunately, that old hackneyed train of thought still exists, and for those people, there is only one clear party to vote for if they want their vote to "count". Sad, but true. Under the democratic system, a party's main goal is to get voted into power. Again, I must use the words "sad but true". To get elected, you have to sell your party to the people. I huge part of selling the party is selling the leader. Harper is not, to a larger portion of the population, saleable. Under this premise, it would strongly behoove the Conservatives to look at other options for leadership of the party. If Harper is such a "visionary", he would have no problem stepping aside and letting someone else take the reins to carry out this "vision". Not about political gain?? I think Harper's incessant attacks over the past few weeks trying to force an election when one has been promised upon completion of Gomery gives lie to this statement. Personally, I think a post-Gomery election is a great idea. Then all the dirt will be out in the open for all to see. The ignorance of Canadians has nothing to do with whether or not Harper is a great leader. If he is a great statesman and politician, he will convince Canada to vote for him. As for being a great leader, well, a great leader would have more control over those he is leading. Evidently, Belinda did not feel he was so great, either as statesman, or as leader.

Of course we now have, according to many Conservatives, another confirmed case of mad-cow right here in Canada. But I'm not sure if Belinda qualifies. Let's see now, to do the test for mad-cow, they need to test a portion of the suspect-case's brain. In the case of both Belinda and Condi, I'm not sure whether they'd find one.

Well, for one thing, the original thread hit 10 pages in less than a day. Many, if not most, of the posts are simple bickering between a few people who simply re-write the same statement over and over again, as do their protagonists, trying to get the better of each other on some insignificant point of wordplay. It gets to the point where it's like trying to swim through molasses just to get all the way through the thread. Individual comments also get buried under a sea of partisan bickering which tends to wander off topic. So, for those reasons, I'll place my first comment about the issue here. While I found Belinda's move a complete surprise, it really isn't all that surprising. The CPC seemed to be keeping her around for decorative purposes only. Evidently, she feels she can make an impact on the political landscape. I, as many others, have viewed her as a lightweight. She's switched over, and now, with a cabinet position, will get a chance to prove herself. She'll swim, or she'll sink. It can't be denied that we need some younger blood in higher government positions. Her level of success in her new post will go a long way towards determining how far she goes in the future. If she does well, good for her. If she flops, then she'll probably disappear from the political scene within a few years. In this regard, it's a win-win situation for the country. Gotta admire her guts, though. She knew perfectly well walking into this that she would be ostracized loud and long, and publicly, by her former compatriots. How she maintains her composure in the next few weeks or months will tell a lot about her fortitude.

It's a well-known fact that there is at least one case of Mad-Cow in the USA right now, even as we speak. This particular mad cow has not been tested for the disease, and even though this mad cow is often trotted out on display for the American people, and indeed for all the world's people to see, no one has yet had the nerve to ask that Condi Rice be tested.

The old quote says "Politics makes strange bedfellows". I don't blame the Conservatives "or whatever they're called this week" for cooperating with the Bloc for purposes of trying to bring down the government. In our current system, it's what they do. It's how the system is set up, pure and simple. I just plain, flat out, don't like Harper. Ever since Manning left, neither Reform, or later, the Whatever-We're-Called-This-Week party, has gone through a spate of losers. Stockwell Day??? Gimme a break. I haven't seen enough of Belinda to form an opinion, perhaps she would have been a better choice. But every time I see Harper or hear him speak, he gives me the willies. Nothing I can explain, so it's all subjective feeling, but evidently I'm not the only one who feels this way. But you're right also in saying Martin has just about had the biscuit. He's lost most, if not all of his credibility lately. NDP??? I don't think so. So, this election, it looks like mine will be a protest vote. Anybody but the 3 listed above. Maybe it's time the Greens got a kick at the can. They can't really make any worse a mess than we've seen in the past 25 years.

Simple. Accomplishing your goals to your own satisfaction. How the outside world sees me is supremely unimportant. If I set goals for my life, and achieve those goals, I am successful. If my goal is to live in the bush in a 1-room hut, living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, most people would not see this as "success". But it is not their goal. In this manner, success is subjective. The only time success becomes the business of others, is if your ambitions involve being in the public eye, ie; politician, entertainer, professional athlete, etc. Even then, your personal goals cannot be judged by an observer, only your performance can be rated against others in your field.

Being from Ontario, this is news to me. I'm, going to have to start thinking up some good whims. I've wasted so much time not having my whims revolved around. Even my neighbour is unaware of this. He's got some pretty good whims saved up, too.

Good job. Very wise. We can't always find someone we want to vote FOR, but we can always find someone we definitely want to vote AGAINST. Well, good luck from Northern Ontario.

"Illuminati" translated literally means "the enlightened". Have you watched question period lately??? Not too much enlightenment there. Kinda blows this theory out of the water. Absolutely. We just have to figure out what "it" is and where "there" is. Uh-huh. And thousands of people who have worked counting votes and such all lied about their count. Can you say "paranoid"??? And just who exactly are these enlightened folks??? Perhaps you'd care to name a few??? No, it's only the foundation of democratic freedom. Not important at all. Yeah. And in another forum a guy "proved" to me that Nazism is a "gift from God to mankind" by showing me select internet entries. News flash; the internet is NOT an encyclopedia. It is a huge, ever-changing repository of thoughts, ideas, and media, input by anyone with access to a computer. The other day I saw a skeleton dancing, on the internet. That did not convince me that skeletons can moonwalk. If unions are part of this "Illuminati" you continue referring to, that means Buzz Hargrove is enlightened??? That blows your theory out of the water AGAIN. You don't need anyone to debate with. You print your thoughts and refute them all in the same post. Uh-huh. Right now there's stucco around my house. I intend to change it to vinyl siding.

Ahh. I see. Thanks for the leg up.

Obviously I've missed something somewhere. What is the connection between Harper's opinion of Martin, and child porn???

1))) I think it's pretty funny. I also think you should relax and take it in stride. Until BD starts saying that these examples of foolishness are typical of the average American, then I don't see it as a big deal. I have seen some pretty stupid stuff about Canada posted here as well, and it is generally taken at, and addressed at, face value, not as an insult to all Canadians. I got a good laugh out of it. Keep 'em coming, BLACKDOG.

Well, you really seem to be getting slapped around on this comment, but hey, what do you expect??? First of all, even American war historians agree that the war in Europe was lost when Hitler turned on Russia. It was only a matter of time. As for the second comment, the USA was VERY appreciated following WWII. Even during and after the Korean war, appreciation for the USA was quite high throughout most of the world. But did it ever occur to you that not everyone agrees that Iraq was any sort of "Imminent threat". Did it occur to you that not everyone was convinced by Bush that Iraq had WMD's, which indeed turned out to not be the case. Did it occur to you that when Bush changed his story about his reasons for invading, that not everyone believed him?? And when he changed it again, that made matters worse??? And when he did it AGAIN..... And AGAIN..... I mean really, how much BS do you expect the world to swallow??? We are NOT collectively Monica Lewinski. We are NOT all able to swallow on demand. The USA is a fine nation, with fine people. Unfortunately, every once in a while it acquires a president who seems to think he needs to "leave his mark" in history, or worse, is infused with a sense of "destiny". That seems, inevitably, to lead to war. Why the hell can't they leave their marks by producing a masterpiece of artwork or something benign???

Good point, but I'll reserve judgement for a few years until we see how "decent" and "tolerant" this new Iraq is after US and other coalition forces have pulled out and left the country on it's own. There is too long a history of brutality by USA-backed regimes. This one may turn out to be better, but then again, it may not. Time will tell.

"Saves the world"??? "Yet again" ??? Gee, when was the first time??? And, how did they save it this time??? "Saves the world". Look out, it's Buck Rogers!!!!

Now if some bimbo came forth and said she gave Bush a blowjob, THEN he'd have to prove himself accoutable (spit) But a little thing like lying to the electorate, not to mention the rest of the planet, just to further his own ambitions by starting a war???? Now that's not anything serious enough to be held accountable for

"Be All That You Can Be" "The Army; It's Not A Job, It's an Adventure" "We Need a Few Good Men" Maybe it's partly because all these feel-good military slogans don't look so great when the adventure starts turning into a nightmare, when "a few good men" die every day, and being "all you can be" turns out to mean being filler for a body-bag for thousands of our youth. Then again, maybe they just need a more fashionable uniform

Isn't that what we're doing right now??? This is, after all, called "The Off-Topic Forum". Anything not related to politics goes here, at least that's my thought.