Redneck Yokel

I do like Harper, as he seems to be a very intelligent individual, but it seems that there are too many who do not share the feeling. The CPC doesn't exactly have a lot of room for lateral movement in policy, so a change in leadership may be the only hope for them. No matter what happens they will not win the next election. Support for the conservative party is much too low at this point to make any real attempt at winning an election and a new leader would have to prove himself/herself before having a chance at running the country.

Agreed.

Derek, Good luck with your campaining next year. I fully agree with the policy of integrating younger individuals into the political system. I myself happened to join these forums when I was 17 (approximately 6 months ago) and I do believe that the younger/current generation does deserve a place in politics, at least to some degree. The major setback this movement may face at the moment may not be age descrimination (though that is a very large part of it), but perhaps it is more of an issue with apathy among the youth. Most people who have recently hit the voting age (within the last few years) are too caught up in setting themselves up for their careers and life in general to become involved in politics. It would be nice to see some fresh faces and ideas in the Municipal, Provincial, and Federal governments, but in order to achieve this you would need to find some very dedicated and well educated young individuals. Then even if you are able to pass beyond this first obstacle, you still have a major stereotype to overcome.

It was said that the surplus came as a result of higher than expected oil prices/revenues. Although I believe money should be 'given back' in the form of permanent tax cuts, this is the next best way to return money to the people. There has already been massive spending initiated in Alberta's social programs so there shouldn't be too much crying coming from that area.

No matter how descriminatory you may consider that to be, it is true to some extent. as Heywood Broun said (I know it's odd that i'm quoting a socialist in an anti-socialist post): Is that not what we're doing in the current system with 'Native-American' or 'First Nations' individuals? We continually pour money into the reserves and yet the standard of living among those people remains just as low as ever. (taken from http://collections.ic.gc.ca/afn/edu6.html. not sure how dependable this source is... it's just the first one I found)

Yes! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would say that's a pretty clear yes. Perhaps you liberals need to clear your clouded minds and actually read what is said.

He actually did answer the question in a slightly roundabout way. Yes! And after almost 15 years, you'd think people would finally get around to recognizing what a wise policy it was. Would Paul Martin have been able to balance the budget without the GST? Fat chance. Would Canadian businesses be able to compete in the international marketplace if the GST had not replaced the MFT? No. Has the GST caused any of the harmful effects that its critics claimed it would? Not a one. Let's face it: the Liberals would abolish the GST tomorrow if they could. But they won't, because they know that ultimately the GST was the right policy. Why don't you Liberal types give Mr Mulroney and his party some credit for replacing the punitive MFT with a transparent and equitable system. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I could not have said it better. Good show.

I fully support the idea of a more 'American' style system, as our system is either non-functional or completely dictatorial (at any one time). I believe that many of our political woes would be solved with a simple (actually more of an overhaul) revamp of the system which we abide by at this time.

Even if the Liberals are defeated in the next election, there is little support to be found for the conservatives among the other political parties. The most likely outcome seems to be a minority conservative government which will surely fall very quickly. That will then be shown as inability to lead by the liberal media and it will only leave the conservatives in a worse position than ever.

Hawk is correct on his point about intent of a word. Just because it is often socially accepted as derogatory, that does not mean that every individual who uses such terms intends for it to be so in that particular instance. Just as you say that not all people of those races/sexual preferences use those terms for themselves, we may say that not all people on the outside who use those terms use them in a demeaning sense. Words are neutral. It is HOW we use them that matters.

nvm

"The Canadian National Energy Board estimated this year that oil-sands producers could be profitable at roughly $24 per barrel, a figure that rises along with the price of the natural gas used in the extraction and upgrading process" from: Here Price as of July 28, 2005: $59.94 Assuming natural gas doesn't decide to make an enormous jump right away, I would say they're not doing too horrible.

I think it is titled in that manner to offer an implication of separatist sentiment.

You're absolutely correct. I have expressed what I intended to say very poorly. I apologize for being so completely unclear. I suppose I should go back to drinking and partying like a normal 18 year old. I'll stay out of such political matters, for the most part.

Melanie, kimmy I'm surprised you even bother responding to the kind of nonsense posted above. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Excellent addition to this topic. I bet if you thought REAL HARD you might be able to think up a personal insult against me as well. I could sit back and take absolutely everything said here out of context and throw it back at you in a jumbled up ball of crap which can never truly be considered intelligent despite the fact that it is (for some reason beyond my own comprehension) considered valid by the wolfpack, but I will try not to. (that's not just to this renegade individual)

In a sense... it is so. (Look here, this statement is so completely open that you won't even have to think about how spin it about. Go ahead and use it as you will. There's no need to ask anyone to clear up a point around here. Bloody hell that would be terrible to have to DISCUSS something rather than just throw out half-brained one liners and gang bash a single person. Good lord, that would be horrid indeed.) Black dog: Please check into a 'discussion' (lmfao, it is quite comical to consider any of this a discussion) before you try to join in. You apparently do not have any idea of what I was speaking of in the first place. Before you reply, simply check into what has been said and what I have said in return. Kimmy and the other one or two: Twist away at my statements all you wish. You could ask me to clarify, perhaps, rather than placing the words in my mouth (so to speak). I thought I had properly expressed what I had wished to say but I apparently have not. It would take entirely too much time and effort at this point in time to clear up the bullsh*t. Please feel free to show further immaturity by using this opportunity to claim that I simply refuse to accept that I am incorrect.

I see exactly what you're saying. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MAKE CHOICES! You're absolutely right....... or perhaps a little too far left of it...

At least until we get another Trudeau and he introduces a second NEP. You can always trust the liberals to exploit Alberta in every manner they can think up.

Argus said it correctly.

Are you seriously comparing gay marriage to murder? This has to be one of the most poorly thought out analogies I've ever heard... -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How so? Whether you stop something from living by never bringing it into existence or destroying its existence... it is still destroyed. Perhaps you're just not willing to think it through. He does concede that it will have an impact, but simply states that it will be minute. I am not comparing the state of being in a ssm to murdering someone, I am comparing the effects of the two things. While the actions may not be the same, the consequences (at least the aspect which I have outlined) are.

If a relatively small percentage of people murdered someone every year that would "have virtually no impact on the long term reproductive survivablity of our species. Does that mean it should be allowed?

You mean OTHER than having to deal with the rallies, parades, and general outcries being thrown at us from every angle?

While it is true Alberta accepted it, what else could we do? We can't use the notwithstanding clause and we can't stop something that isn't in the Provincial jurisdiction. We have our hands tied =p Fortunately, Klein has already announced plans to put in place legislation to protect anyone (religious or not) that does not want to perform a SSM. Also there is talks of the Provincial government stepping out of marriage all together

Fair enough: Death toll caused by Fuhrer Hitler: 6 million+ Death toll caused by Chairmain Mao: 30 million+ So tell me again how Hitler was so bad? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You can't begin to compare the two things. In asking why hitler was so bad, you are throwing out a very general question with many many answers and aspects. In the case of Hawk's post, he was responding to a previously narrowed and specified subject (the handling of funds and the corruption associated with it in the canadian political system).

*points to signature*