Scotty

What do you think of Ignateiff's judgement for doing an interview with a known Sikh terrorist supporter, even though he was told about the man's past prior to the interview?

The books are very popular and hugely praised. I bought the first book in the series, read most of it, but didn't continue. I thought it was too dark and depressing. The first show of the series didn't strike me in the same way, but it obviously was putting its time into familiarizing people with the world, culture and people. There was some nudity, including, interestingly, an incestuous scene between the Queen and her brother, and what looked like the lead-in to another one between the Targaryen siblings.Ah well, you know these inbred royals. I'm just surprised an American network would show it.

Chretien sent the RCMP to raid the home of a troublesome and embarrassing public servant he had ordered cashiered. The mounties spent four million dollars in trying to persuade the Quebec crown to arrest the guy and put him away, to no avail. A judge in the man's lawsuit later called the RCMP behaviour outrageous, and the way the government treated the man "an unspeakable injustice" Why don't you tell me, Liberal supporter, what Harper has done to compare to that.

It is not xenophobic to want to be around your own people at home. It is perfectly normal. There is no people anywhere on Earth who would not start to feel antsy and resentful if half their town was suddenly filled with foreigners and their foreign ways. People like to feel at home in their home.

Childish partisan drivel. She was invited to a meeting at the school. There's no evidence she even saw or talked to this Malik guy. On the other hand, the leader of the liberal party was interviewed the other week by an admitted terrorist supporter, who actually praised the men who beat up Dosanj years ago! and Ignatieff knew about the man's past ahead of time, and decided that the potential for votes was worth doing the interview anyway.

Populist sentiments like these don't usually get expressed much in public, but they're commonplace in areas of high immigration. I think it's a natural human behaviour pattern to want to feel at home amongst ones community to want to feel a sense of belonging, companionship, association. When the number of foreigners rises to the point where everywhere you go you seem to feel outnumbered by people who are speaking foreign languages, dressing and acting in a different way, and who don't always share your beliefs, native Canadians can feel resentment and anger. This is entirely natural and you'll find it anywhere in the world. But the anger and resentment should be turned towards politicians who embrace our wide open immigration system, and not the immigrants themselves. That's not to say that some individuals among the great mass of immigrants we bring over don't merit our anger. Some are criminals, some are lazy, many, coming from hardscrabble, third world societies, are quick to take advantage of every single thing they can legally obtain here, even if that means fudging applications or lying a little (corruption being often endemic in some of these societies). And some are religious fanatics who feel superiority towards our culture and value systems and have no interest in changing or embracing them. But ultimately, the presence of such people is the fault of the system, and the system is at the very least accepted by the people we vote for. Thus the need to vote out those individuals who embrace the current wide open immigration system, if you can find any. Problem is that almost no politicians are willing to openly condemn immigration and call for its curtailment. The best we can hope for is to vote for politicians who seem likely to tighten up the rules to keep out the bad immigrants, and the immigrants who are a drain on our social services. Right now, given the wholesale, unrestrained enthusiasm demonstrated by Liberals and the NDP for immigration, the best shot we have are the Tories. Maybe with a majority they might tighten things up further, and help edge our immigration system to one which benefits Canada, and not merely themselves.

Kelly Mcparland had a good point in the Post today. He said that in virtually every election the Liberals won they did so because of Quebec. Now that the BQ is there, and Quebec has lost interest in them the Liberals have lost their meal ticket. They're virtually dead in the West, and while they still retain some strength in Atlantic Canada that's not enough. They need Ontario, but they've been steadily losing seats there for four straight elections, and have to find a way to appeal to Ontarions outside Toronto.

Let's not forget that the Conservatives were the only party with the balls to risk the anger of the Tamil community, and their votes, by outright putting the Tigers on a terrorist list and banning all support for them. The Liberals sure as hell wouldn't do it, and the first election after that they promised to see about getting them removed form the list! As I posted just the other day, Paul Martin went to a fund raiser for these people, despite being warned by CSIS, the RCMP and the American embassy that they were supporters of the Tamil Tigers, and he and Jean Chretien, when questioned about it in the House, implied the questioners were racists for daring to suggest there was anything wrong with this group. So I think that tells us all the difference between the Tories and Liberals on the subject of the Tamil Tigers. Now clearly this guy slipped past their scrutineers and now they clearly don't want to admit they made a mistake, probably because he has virtually no chance of winning anyway. I'm thinking after the election is over he'll be quietly dis-invited from the party, and will never be permitted to run again.

Oooo, arch nemisis? Can I be an arch-nemisis? Huh? Can II? Can I!? Buddy?

On the contrary. It's the bigger picture I'm looking at, and the long term picture of growing crowding and pollution in our cities, growing congestion on roadways, disappearing farmland and forests. .You said they contributed to our society. I pointed out that most of these older immigrants aren't a part of our society and can't speak our language. Broadly speaking, that's not incorrect. I think our western, secular culture is the most advanced in the world, and I see no help to it in importing millions of people from more backward societies and cultures, many of which are, by our standards, religious fanatics with outmoded values often inimical to our own. Therefore I would indeed be happier to be bringing in people from similar cultures with similar value systems. Define few. With the economic situation being the way it is in many parts of Europe I bet we could satisfy most of our immigration requirements there. Further, most of what I've read on immigration needs suggests we don't require anything like as many immigrants as we bring in each year. Half of what we now bring in would do us fine, if they were the right kind of immigrants. Most immigrants don't even outweigh (economically) their own cost. Remember that until you pass a certain income level you don't even pay income taxes here. So if you're an immigrant with a dependent wife and three kids and you don't make a relatively high income you're not even paying for the services your immediate family uses, never mind that of parents or grandparents. And statistics show immigrants are faring worse now economically, than their predecessors used to, with higher poverty rates and lower income levels.

Everyone bitches about Harper being a hardass. Well, guess what, Canadians LIKE hardasses! Trudeau was a hardass Turner wasn't Mulroney was a hardass Campbell - not hardly Clark? LOl Chretien was definitely a hardass Harper - hardass Dion and Ignatieff? LOL And Canadians have consistently said in surveys, by a huge margin, that Harper is a better leader and PM than any of the alternatives. So you can wish away for some hand-wringing compromiser, but they're never going to get elected unless there are no tough guys running against them. Canadians WANT their leader to be tough SOB

I said you were a liberal, not a Liberal. .You could say the same about Mulroney and Chretien if you just willed yourself into ignoring all the stuff they did which wasn't honest.

Actually it's more like this. You bring in the one couple with kids. Then they sponsor their parents. Then the parents sponsor all their other children - and their spouses - and their kids. These other children's spouses then sponsor their parents, who then sponsor their own children. This is how the family reunification program took over our immigration system back in the eighties. We've slowly been drawing away from that, but even now the majority of immigrants who come here are only allowed in because they're related to someone we see as 'skilled' in some way.

Cause you're such an impressive and eloquent debater.

You can forget Rae and the other anglos. The next leader has to be French I'm not sure if its tradition or actually in the party constitution, but they're not going to mess with it. I also agree they need more than just a new leader. They need a vision. All the other parties stand for something. What do Liberals stand for? What is it they want to do when in power, other than enjoy being in power? Is it possible for them to come out with some actual policy ideas which aren't based purely on perceived popularity and curb appeal? For a party which is still strongly associated with graft, corruption and arrogance, having no vision is a death knell. Nobody wants to run for office representing such a party other than crass political opportunists and you become a party of hucksters.

Oh, right, I forgot you WERE a third worlder. No offense intended... buddy.

So lying through your teeth is okay, as long as you apologize when you get caught. What's more, the apology then makes you an honourable man! You mean his closing down the House of Commons committee hearings because they started to get embarrassing? Uhm, ok. If he'd done the same sorts of accounting games as the accountant of a private company he'd have been arrested. And some desperate liberals let themselves be blinded by ignoring what they don't want to face.

They contribute nothing to OUR society, and mostly don't even speak English or French. They require vast sums of health care dollars for which they have not contributed. And isn't the aging population held up by pro-immigration people as one of THE major reasons why we must continue to bring in masses of third worlders every year? How exactly is that aided by bringing in old people?

Only in one sense. Yes, the NDP and Liberals are more than willing to sacrifice Canada's economic interests for cheap political gain. But Duceppe won't allow immigrants into Quebec unless they are French. That's been Quebec's immigration policy for quite some time, and they have special control over immigrants in order to make certain of it.

So you're running for office, and are ten to fifteen points out ahead, and it's a week from the election, that's the time to start coming up with original ideas? You know better. No politician in Harper's position is going to do a bloody thing other than keep plodding, keep his head down, avoid distractions, avoid scandal or controversy, avoid giving the opposition anything new to toss his way. And who is/was better than Harper? Trudeau, that economic illiterate? Mulroney the crook, or Chretien the cheap crook? The hapless Joe Clark? Mr. Dithers? Mulroney and Trudeau had a lot more charisma, but a lot less competence - and honesty.

Every poll continues to show Harper is more popular than his party.

You were probably still in diapers back then. You clearly don't remember how everyone kept telling the government that it needed to close down the offshore tax loopholes that allowed companies to operate in Canada but pay no taxes. Finally, he acted, years after the fact, closing down all the offshore sites but one -- uhm, the one his company was using. That's right, none of his ships were registered in Canada, not even the one that got caught smuggling heroin - into a port which had no police because Martin ordered the Ports Police disbanded. Hmmmm, big time ship owner, disbands ports police, organized crime takes over the ports, and one of his ships gets caught smuggling dope. Just a coincidence, I'm sure... I remember when it turned out that some puny little private airport in Quebec got more money from the feds for upgrades and renovations than all the airports in Alberta combined. Turns out it was the airport his father in law used to get to his summer home. And let's not forget how he ignored the advice and urging of Foreign Affairs, the RCMP, CSIS, and the Americans to support a terrorist supporting Sri Lankan group - and refused to outlaw them because they donated money to his campaign and supported the Liberal party. Yeah, nice guy Paul Martin, known as mr dithers for his indecisiveness, but also known to scream into the faces of subordinates - bully. And, of course, the man who controlled almost half the party, with hundreds of loyalists in key positions, especially in Quebec, didn't have a clue about the sponsorship scandal. Right. Sure.

Yeah? How many MPs resigned over it? How many people quit the party over it? As far as my memory goes there was some grumbling, but nobody rocked the boat.

Too much bad blood, not enough respect for each other. The Liberals have spent fifteen years demonizing the reformers, then the alliance and then the conservatives as evil extremists, hatemongers and retrogrades. Conservatives hate them now.

Paul Martin was a lying, conniving, dishonest weasel who would have sacrificed his own mother to Satan to be prime minister.