err

Since the USA already "participated" in a coup attempt, you can bet they're going to try to try again... maybe listening to Pat Robinson's advice and use a bullet ... They're known to do it....

More or less true. I'd say LESS.Dictatorial.... get a grip... You can vote for whomever you wish... Mark Emery could very well think the same way you do... because his party has even less chance of getting elected than the Cons. do .... But even he has a closer grip on reality than you obviously do, because at least he understands that his policies are not acceptable by most Canadians. Under Brian Mulroney, the Cons. fell into pretty meech the same situation.... It is not uniquely a Liberal problem... but nice try...

Yes, Yes, and Yes. Really.... They've been caught red-handed as much as anybody else.... but manage to change the stories and/or keep them from getting much air time... How about the killing of tens, no hundreds of thousands of people for oil.... A lot of the treachery around starting the war is coming out now.... Is killing with guns and cruise missiles any more acceptable than killing with hand-knives and swords ???? Your lack of criticism of the USA, and your vigilant defense of the US, their policies, motives, and actions, cause me to doubt that US abuses concern you at all.

People have come to recognize who the Cons. represent. If you'll look at the Canadian population, it turns out that the Cons. policies represent between 1 and 10% of the population (the wealthiest sector). It's not just recent immigrants that make up the majority of Canadians. Funny how you are desperate to blame anybody but the Cons. for their poor showing in the polls... Perhaps it is their policies that are keeping them from power, rather than the recent immigrants..... If you're really looking for who to blame for the Cons. lack of popularity, I'll give you two suggestions: 1) Brian Mulroney, and everything he did 2) Steven Harper, and everything he promises to do... The Liberals try to sound socialistic before elections to win the popular vote, but then, actualy govern as Conservatives. In the last election campaign, Martin was begging NDP supporters help, saying "We're not so different".... but the truth is, that todays Liberals govern as Conservatives, and todays Cons. promise to govern of the far right hand side of the spectrum.... Canadians don't want that... No... The Right went so far further to the right that they fell off the table.... So the Liberals and the NDP are about all that's left on the table..

Here's a good explanation of the logic in Jack Layton's proposed motion:

You can regurgitate the false propeganda, or you can try to learn what is really going on. I have provided an exerpt that might help. QUOTE(Why Venezuela has Voted Again for Their 'Negro e Indio' President by Greg Palast ) So why, with a huge majority of the electorate behind him, twice in elections and today in a referendum, is Hugo Chavez in hot water with our democracy-promoting White House? Maybe it's the oil. Lots of it. Chavez sits atop a reserve of crude that rivals Iraq's. And it's not his presidency of Venezuela that drives the White House bananas, it was his presidency of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. While in control of the OPEC secretariat, Chavez cut a deal with our maximum leader of the time, Bill Clinton, on the price of oil. It was a 'Goldilocks' plan. The price would not be too low, not too high; just right, kept between $20 and $30 a barrel. But Dick Cheney does not like Clinton nor Chavez nor their band. To him, the oil industry's (and Saudi Arabia's) freedom to set oil prices is as sacred as freedom of speech is to the ACLU. I got this info, by the way, from three top oil industry lobbyists. Why should Chavez worry about what Dick thinks? Because, said one of the oil men, the Veep in his bunker, not the pretzel-chewer (Bill Clinton) in the White House, "runs energy policy in the United States." And what seems to have gotten our Veep's knickers in a twist is not the price of oil, but who keeps the loot from the current band-busting spurt in prices. Chavez had his Congress pass another oil law, the "Law of Hydrocarbons," which changes the split. Right now, the oil majors - like PhillipsConoco - keep 84% of the proceeds of the sale of Venezuela oil; the nation gets only 16%. Chavez wanted to double his Treasury's take to 30%. And for good reason. Landless, hungry peasants have, over decades, drifted into Caracas and other cities, building million-person ghettos of cardboard shacks and open sewers. Chavez promised to do something about that. And he did. "Chavez gives them bread and bricks," one Venezuelan TV reporter told me. ...... But to feed and house the darker folk in those bread and brick lines, Chavez would need funds, and the 16% slice of the oil pie wouldn't do it. So the President of Venezuela demanded 30%, leaving Big Oil only 70%. Suddenly, Bill Clinton's ally in Caracas became Mr. Cheney's -- and therefore, Mr. Bush's -- enemy. So began the Bush-Cheney campaign to "Floridate" the will of the Venezuela electorate. It didn't matter that Chavez had twice won election. Winning most of the votes, said a White House spokesman, did not make Chavez' government "legitimate." Hmmm. Secret contracts were awarded by our Homeland Security spooks to steal official Venezuela voter lists. Cash passed discreetly from the US taxpayer, via the so-called 'Endowment for Democracy,' to the Chavez-haters running today's "recall" election. A brilliant campaign of placing stories about Chavez' supposed unpopularity and "dictatorial" manner seized US news and op-ed pages, ranging from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York Times. But some facts just can't be smothered in propaganda ink. While George Bush can appoint the government of Iraq and call it "sovereign," the government of Venezuela is appointed by its people. And the fact is that most people in this slum-choked land don't drive Jaguars or have their hair tinted in Miami. Most look in the mirror and see someone "negro e indio," as dark as their President Hugo. The article can be found here: Why Venezuela has Voted Again for Their 'Negro e Indio' President

It would appear that perhaps it is your over-optimism that is responsible for not accepting what August has written. It would appear that the NDP are, as I had predicted, the ones that will gain in this election. NDP's gain the newest headache for Martin You may also wish to check out this link to help curb the inflation in your optimism: Still feeling jilted after right-wing marriage

Thank you for recognizing that I am consistent, a complement that I'd have a hard time returning... Your very sad story was a "red herring", and in order to reduce the amount of space taken by irrelevant text, I shortened it. The topic was about the USA's abuse of the Canadian youth. Your terribly tragic tale of those abused by the Taliban do not make legitimate the actions of the USA with respect to the youth in question. I'm sorry that I brought up all the secret CIA prisons that have just come to light, similarly to the prison in the tragic tale you recounted above. Maybe you could help me with this. When the CIA emprisons and tortures foriegners, do they do it in a much more humane fashion, so that these actions cannot be practially compared with those perpetrated by foriegn parties ??? It would appear that more than just the cold-war mentality survives.... so too, it would appear, does Archie Bunker's mentality

Well, lets say that the Taliban abuses human rights 80% of the time, and the US 5% of the time. (The abuses, such as torture, murder etc. are virtually equal, just the reason for application is different). What in your mind is the balance we should aim for? 50-50? (I would prefer 0-0) 2 wrongs do not make a right. Because the Taliban are horrible abusers of human rights, does it mean that we should ignore those of the USA ???? I have never made a pro-Taliban, pro-Al Queda, or pro-Saddam statement... Your straw-man arguemts don't address the issue of the USA's handling of this Canadian/Afghani kid....

I don't see that I am paranoid. Cynical, perhaps... and not blinded by either hatred or faith.The war in Iraq (the one I was referring to, with respect to USA's abuses of human rights) is about oil, greed, and power... it has abolutely nothing to do with democracy, WMDs, or helping the Iraqi people. And if you really believe the George Bush phoney baloney stories, I'll have to ask you where you got your drugs from.... The invasion of Afghanistan.... is a different matter..... the USA didn't have to make up phoney stories to invade Afghanistan... they had some justification in that one....

How true... They can build a big plant here and say... Look, made in Canada... and then ship 6 in for every one built here..... And most Canadians will fall for it, hook, line and sinker....

Many of us have been doing just that since long before this incident came to light.... and for good reason... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I recall an article by a BBC reporter a few years ago in Kabul. This was before 911. He managed to bribe his way into a prison there. It was a small sort of prison, a large, ugly stone building. blah, blah (quoting somebody's story).. ......then crouched in the shadows staring at them in fear. Deaths by beating and disease were routine. This was one small example of the Taliban. And no one cared. This was what Khadr and his family were fighting to not only preserve but spread throughout the world. But the America haters never cared about them, and they don't care about all the other innocents jammed into horrible prisons throughout the world, from India to China to North Korea to Liberia. ... Good point... Did you read about all of those secret CIA prisons too ???? And nobody cared about those people being tortured by the CIA, because they didn't tell us... Just like nobody cared about I can apreciate how you consider the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis for control of the Iraqi oil is exceedingly mild... The deaths of about 500,000 Iraqis between the two wars because the USA wouldn't allow anyone to bring water purification into Iraq was also exceedingly small, considering how badly they wanted the oil for their friends at Exxon, Chevron, Mobil, (and lets not leave Tony's BP out) This is a twist... I thought you were pro-american...

Do you think he can beat Don Cherry ???

The solution is not "being creative", like inviting private health care into the picture. The problem is the cuts in federal financing of health care.The problem, in recent history began with deficit reduction. Being easier to point to "rising medical costs" as a source of deficit than to look at the reduction of revenue due to corporate tax cuts, Paul Martin (and his predecessors), and our provincial governments chopped financing for health care.... and chopped some more, and chopped some more. The Federal government has cut transfers so much (to fund corp. tax cuts and deficit reduction) that we have a problem. This problem is at the forefront of our current political crisis in Canada, but is being pushed out of view as best as possible by the Liberals and Conservatives. The big issue that the NDP has with the Liberals is that they will not put a serious effort into preventing the privatization of our public health care system. The NDP has demanded that all new federal funding (to the provinces) for health care cannot go towards private health care. It has to be spent in the public system. While the Liberals pretend to comply with this for "new" spending, they will not apply it to the $40 Billion of increased health-care funding announced in recent months.... What's wrong with the NDP proposition.... if you really cared for our public system, it is the only sensible course of action. And realistically, according to the Canada Health Act, that is how it is supposed to be..... But Paul Martin's Liberals want some of that $40 Billion to make it back into the hands of the companies that financially contribute to the Liberal party. (Make no mistake, the Cons. are worse than the Liberals in this regard). The solution is to show the federal parties that we support the parties that support our health care system.... vote NDP.

This is a matter of interpretation. First, no policy by any party is "wilfully" going to destroy the country. No... just dismantle our public health-care system, under-fund education, restrict and reduce UI benefits, practice tight-money policies which benefit only the wealthy.... That's not destroying the country... It's making it better for the really wealthy.... Possibly, depending on how it is done. But it is only your supposition that they intend to do any of those things. I, for one, don't believe they have that intention. Actually, I don't believe that it is their primary intention to destroy the country for the poorer and middle classes. However, it is obvious that this being a natural conseqeunce of their actual intentions doesn't seem to bother them, so in my opinion, they are just as guilty. And much of the funding for social programs, like health care, subsidized housing, etc... comes from the federal government and is doled out by the provincial government.... So when the federal government cuts transfers to the province, it has to cut something.... and social programs seem to be the easy target... And yet the Liberals slashed transfer payments for health, education, and social welfare. And the country was not destroyed. So are you suggesting the Liberals tried to destroy the country? And if so why should we vote for them? You are asking for the re-election of a government which has already done the things you only fear the Tories might do. The Martin government is running a fear campaign accusing the Tories of something they themsevles did to balance the 1995 budget... I dislike Martin's Liberals because they are fiscal Conservatives. When Martin's Liberals were patting themselves on the back for deficit reduction, the Harper Cons were complaining that they "didn't go fare enough" with the cuts. Thus, while I think the Liberals are bad, the Cons. are unquestionably much worse.There is another choice though... vote NDP.

He was ELECTED... I know it might sound better to lie and call him a dictator, but he is and has been, ever since first elected a people's chamion. The "strike" was portrayed by the neo-cons as being as you described. In actuality, the wealthier Venezuelans didn't like the fact that Chavez was a champion of the poor. He was attmepting to truly nationalize their "nationalized" oil company (PDVSA), so that the revenue from the nation's oil went into the country's coffers (so everyone benefited), instead of to a handful of corrupt elite. The PDVSA thought they could make the citizens revolt on Chavez by crippling the country's finances... but it didn't work... Chavez won, and truly nationalized the oil, so the revenue benefits all Venezuelans, not just the elite. Chavez is a champion of the poor, which is the majority of the population of the country. Chavez held a referendum, on re-writing the constitution of the country... and received 70 percent support. The new constitution provided strong protections for women's equality, rights for indigenous people, and a ban on the privatization of the nations oil. The USA and other Big Oil companies would like that to be the case. On April 11, 2002, an armed faction took over the presidential palace in Caracas and took Chavez prisoner. When the public caught wind of this, they took to the streets. The coup had the support of the Bush administration. According to Chavez, "Washington applauded. The American ambassador (Charles Shapiro) came here to the palace and supported the coup". Only the next day, after Latin American leaders strongly condemned the coup, did US secretary of State, Colin Powell come out against it as well.

and maybe by his mommy and daddy when they brought him there.... You said " western countries see him as just a kid...a child..." He is being detained by a western country... who do not see him as a "child", even though he wouldn't be allowed to buy a drink in that country for another 6 years (after the "crime"), allowed to drive a car in that country for at least another year (after the "crime")..... because, according to their definition for their own citizens, he's a kid..... He's in his parent's custody ??? So they're in custody in Guantanamo Bay too... (Actually, I believe that I read his father was killed in Afghanistan). The fact that his parents are not "good parents" by our definitition does not take away from the fact that the USA's actions are out of line. But he's not in the muslim world right now, is he... Many of us have been doing just that since long before this incident came to light.... and for good reason...

I oppose prosecution in a Kangroo court... He is a prisoner of war.... and should be treated as such. Alternately, he should be treated as a minor....He has undured considerable trauma through his upbringing and experiences, both in the war-zone and in his imprisonment and torture... Releasing him into society would probably not be the best idea without considerable treatment and appropriate custody arrangments.....

You have to take a better look than this. How much of this is really paid for the Canadian taxpayer through tax credits, early write-offs of material expenses, etc... And in the end, they are guaranteed to be compensated at the pumps.... PS: Yaro, excellent posts...

It would appear to me that postion presented is that the dire consequences would be a result of a Conservative government rather than a "non-Liberal" one... I know a guy who was devastated because he got Herpes... but, using your logic, it isn't so bad, because he still has it....

This is a matter of interpretation. First, no policy by any party is "wilfully" going to destroy the country. No... just dismantle our public health-care system, under-fund education, restrict and reduce UI benefits, practice tight-money policies which benefit only the wealthy.... That's not destroying the country... It's making it better for the really wealthy.... Like what? I mean, given social programs are a provincial responsibility. And much of the funding for social programs, like health care, subsidized housing, etc... comes from the federal government and is doled out by the provincial government.... So when the federal government cuts transfers to the province, it has to cut something.... and social programs seem to be the easy target... I really don't care as long as things get done properly. The government is not my mommy, and I don't want it to be. I think that is the major diference between us. You need the government to be there for every little problem which crops up in your life, or with society as a whole. I want them to take out the garbage and see to the sewers and stuff like that. Well, to go back to one of your earlier arguments.... garbage and sewers are a provincial responsability... An example of the necessity of the federal government would be health care... which is a "provincial responsibility".... however, the Feds hand out the money to the province, and can and should stipulate how and where it is spent. Ie. on public health care rather than private..... You'll note that this is significant enough of an issue to tear down our liberal government...

Did you mean "No reality" ???

Argus, he was born in Canada, and that makes him a Canadian citizen. Being a racist doesn't help your argument. I think the difference between our thinking here is that I have standards. You have none. Your interpretation of what it means to be Canadian is as heartful and emotional as that of a Bay street account or lawyer. As long as they have the documentation, they're Canadian to you. Heck, they might not speak the language, might have spent little or no time here, might hate everything this country stands for and pray for Allah to destroy us all, but to you, as long as the paperwork is in place they're every bit as Canadian as everyone else. I wonder why, if being Canadian means so very, very little to you, you even care about what happens to this country. You may have standards... Ernst Zundell has standards too... Both yours and Ernst's are very different from mine. (I'm not saying that you're the same as Ernst... He hated Jews, and you... well Arabs aren't Jews...)I have an anti-terrorist position, but I don't consider this kid to be a terrorist.... a soldier maybe, but realistically, he was brought there and plunked into the situation by his parents..... So he was more realistically a vict0m of unfortunate circumstance..... One big difference between our standards is that I don't let my vision become blinded by hatred.... racist or otherwise... You're going to have us in tears... the poor lad, being brainwashed by his parents.... not getting to have a normal childhood.... Wars involve nations. When nations make peace, the prisoners are released to those other nations. But this was not a war between nations. OK... It was a war between the US/Coalition and the "supporters of the official government of their nation".... Do you really have no idea just how brutal, how vicious the Taliban were? Is that relavent to the question ??? I don't think so.... I guess you have very simple black and white perspectives.... and have trouble with the more complicated thought processes expressed by others... I am no supporter of the Taliban, and think that it is a good thing that their reign is ended. However, I can see the situation of this kid as being different.... he is not the Taliban... He's a kid... perhaps a soldier who is playing for the different team... Similarly, I do not approve of many of the actions of the USA's administration, their blatant disregard for human life, etc.... But my negative sentiment is not toward individual Americans.... Some of my best friends are Americans... and the funny thing is... many of them feel exactly as I do about the administration... I'll agree with you on that point....

It's funny that the Gomery report PRAISED Paul Martin and Ralph Goodale.... They came out stinking like roses... The Liberals who were involved in the scandal won't be running next time, you can be sure of that.... And I'd rather the billions "wasted" on Canadian citizens than given to Corp Canada.....

Don't you hate those lefties like Tommy Douglas who got health care for all of us... And those who try to protect us are just as bad, aren't they..... Seriously err, are you comparing Tommy Douglas to Jack Layton? Yes, in that he's the closest of all our leaders to what Tommy Douglas stood for. And right now, he's fighting to keep what Tommy fought so hard for.... Keeping our health care public. Arresting the creepage of privatization is more important that many in this forum obviously believe. If you realistially consider the costs, overheads, profit margins, etc... you cannot escape the conclusion that a public impementation is less expensive for the same quality result.