B. Max

Ok, but what might they do. I don't think they'll sit still. Will they test fire some more missiles, and who's direction would they aim them. I can't see them aiming towards Japan lest they decide that this is to much and build their own nukes. They might, if they get the bugs out their long range missiles aim one towards the US. After all that's who they want to send a message to and the US already has nukes. Will they try another nuke test. Or will they try something all together different.

I agree the UN has been an enabler of all sorts of bad behavior.

It will be interesting to see what NK does next. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...3543.shtml?s=lh

The number I believe is 6% although it would still mean massive cutbacks. In this country in 1990 we were in a recession and we would have to have a recession 6% worse with no hope of ever recovering. Another thing about business. If you have business stagnation it means death to the business. Apply that to a country and no hope of getting out and you have the conditions of a third world backwater.

I don't think we're in Kansas anymore toto

I didn't realize it was up to me to prove all the nutjobs wrong B Max. I would say it is up to you to see that your credibility doesn't suffer.

Just like everything else you provide proof of nothing.

Where is your proof. Or anyone elses for that matter. Lets take a look at the reality of the kyoto nonsense. Keeping in that the whack jobs who promote the kyoto scam claim this is only a beginning. After you get rid of everything, what the hell else are they going to get rid of. If Canada were to remove every plane, train and automobile from service and were to shut down every manufacturing plant in the country, we would still not meet our Kyoto target, according to GHG figures available on Environment Canada's website. http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...01/1930112.html

Like I said, Alberta secession at the very least, and with some luck, avoid civil war.

"We" have the seats? Which "we" are you talking about? Combined, Edmonton and its suburbs and Calgary and its suburbs make up 45 of the 82 seats in the legislature. -k The suburbs generally vote conservative as opposed to liberal within city boundaries and are not really city friendly. To a large degree a lot of people live there for that reason. Edmonton especially is at odds with the surrounding counties. Some of Edmonton's latest attempted agressions with its surroundings include toll charges for entering the city for non residents, trying to talk county councils into charging their residents extra property tax and then handing it over to Edmonton, trying to stop surrounding counties from building anything within eight clicks of Edmonton city limits. If Olberg or Dinning try to make this between rural and cities they will lose and if one of them wins and is seen as anti rural then I think a lot of people are going to take a serious look at the alliance and that's where the seats are going to come into play. I would say Morton has excellent support from the Montana border to at least Red Deer and likely some pretty good support even in Calgary. North east and west of Edmonton to varying distances is likely also Morton territory. The FT. Mac and Grande Prairie areas are likely key. The highway 43 fiasco and whatever the hells going on with 63 don't exactly make things good for anyone seen to be, or thought to be connected with the old guard.

And what is the goal of these "green whack jobs"? Is it simply to take away your cheque book? Have they invented Global Warming simply to cause all the car manufacturers and oil companies to go out of business so that you no longer have a pay cheque? I'm not really interested in your conspiracy theories, but it's like a train wreck and I can't help but ask a couple of questions about it. The topic assumes that Global Warming is an issue, and quite obviously it is. Whether you're living in the denial dream world or not, Global Warming is undeniably an issue today that politicians are scrambling to either address or give the impression that they will address it. Given that, this sneak preview of Harpers plan does not bode well for the CPC. Nothing in the world would have guaranteed them a majority moreso than strong action on Global Warming. Actually their ultimate goal is depopulation. They have invented man made global warming, that is a fact. They have also stated that they intend to drive industrialization out of business and that is what sustains the population. Whatever strong action is on the so called global warming would ensure defeat for Harper at the very least ensure Alberta secession and most without some luck lead to civil war.

Ted Morton... the only way the PC's will lose the next election. He's a reactionary hick. No appeal in the Calgary or Edmonton, and guess what, we have the mooooola. So too bad so sad, Morton will not be the next leader. I'd put money on that. Ted Morton is a political scientist and constitutional expert, well thought out and well researched. To win the next election will have nothing to do with who might have some kind of slick willy appeal to Calgary or Edmonton or how much money they have because we have the seats.

Im afraid you are right just like reform had it right from the beginning.

Who Hates the USA? Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Sindy Sheehan, the list goes on and on.

Yeah the first one to go would be Ontario.

I think it's gona come down to who do you trust. If it does, that puts Ted Morton as the man. http://www.770chqr.com/news/news_local.cfm...=news_local.cfm

No it's the so called no existent terrorists in the non existent war on terrorism that the left keeps telling us about. Fortunately right thinking people know better. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52197

Is this the kinda talk that makes liberals wet their pants. Trot out the old tax me I'm canadian. This might sell in Teeronta / the outer edge of the lunatic fringe but that's likely all the legs it will get. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2006/...2016835-cp.html

Bomb them for trying As opposed to what. Appeasement and paying more of their extortion attempts.

Does that put me one up on you.

It doesn't change anything, and foriegn fighters have been there for a long time.

No I don't see. In fact I don't see you backing up anything you say. It's called the Sunni led insurgency, they were the rulers of the bathest party. The party of Saddam. They couldn't beat the US so they decided to try and start a civil war and began murdering Shiite's. Of course all the Bush bashers started blaming Bush, in stead of those responsible, and have even suggested putting Saddam back in charge. Once again siding with Islamic terrorists and states that sponsor terrorism. Same old same old. http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2003/august/08_26_1.html

I'm pretty sure he's joking.

http://www.raypfob.com/proof.htm You need to come to Alberta some time and get away from that eastern influence.

Who said that?