err

I don't think that some of the other posters will want to acknowledge that the NDP did something that will benefit all cities in Canada, reduce pollution (and global warming), reduce cost of living for working people, reduce congestion on our roads... It probably really Burns them to admit that the NDP is doing a good job.

I still say C. However, the current minority government is one in which the NDP have no teeth... A few more seats though, and we'd be in a good position. Put Martin up on the TV screen, and have Jack Layton holding onto the remote control.... I think it would be great...

Did you mean "fooling" ordinary Canadians. With Wilson's first budget saying that they were going to "make the rich pay their fair share" and such to throw off the scent about what they were really up to ... He brought in the regressive GST under which poorer people pay a larger percentage of their income in Mulroney's new sales tax. Trudeau was charismatic, and at the same time had the testicular fortitude to tell those with an adversarial position just where to get off. When meeting with the USA, he returned with no stains on the front of his suit, as did Mulroney.... While I was never a big fan of Cretiens, especially since he didn't remove the regressive GST as promised... but I'll take my hat off to him for his stand on Iraq.... For that we should all be forever grateful. (Because you know our boys would be coming back in body bags if we had a Tory government... ) Yes.. he sold us to the United States, made sure that the poor and downtrodden didn't get off too easy...

How about C. The Liberals don't deserve a majority, and the Conservatives don't deserve any amount of power at all. Thus, if we can't have an NDP government, a Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power is the next best thing. Paul Martin is going to come out with his "We're not so different" speaches to try to steal NDP votes from those in paralytic fear of a Conservative/Reform/Alliance government. I think that this is what the NDP has to fight the hardest. In the past several years, we've had a few cases of "voting out" a party. In Ontario, the NDP suffered last year when everyone was panicking about the possibility of a conservative government... OPSEU told their members to vote Liberal.... The CAW too... If there hadn't been such a "panic mentality", the NDP would have had a lot more votes... A minority Liberal government would have been a lot better than what we got in the last provincial election.... If everybody votes for the party that best represents their interests (and socio-economic class) the NDP would will by a landslide... Since that's not likely, lets hope for the "balance of power".....

Maybe Mirror chooses to see the world as it really is... Not through fantasy-land glasses....

He's not Quitting is he ???

What the hell do we need roads for... Any decent citizen can drive a big manly SUV....PS. B. Max. In the United States, they don't have any provinces. They have states...

B. Max the socialist... It must have been a slip of the tongue..... Or were you just referring to "rich" Albertans.

What happens if the rivers start flowing chocolate, Liberal corruption ends and the Leafs win the cup? We are truly living in fantasyland! I think the NDP is going to hold the cards after the next election.... maybe not win, but certainly hold the remote control... Disaffected Liberals will be unlikely to go to the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives, or whatever they'll be called by the next election.... And disaffected Liberals might just listen to Paul Martin's own line "The Liberals and NDP aren't so different in what we stand for"... except that the public got to see who really stands behind what they say... and says what they stand for...

And that's the best you can come up with... Pretty lame...I have to agree with Mirror on this one... The NDP is the only party that has shown any interest in the greater public good in the past year or so... and all of Canada has seen it... Well except for those who don't possess the intellectual capacity to see it... They'll be the ones to contradict Mirror's and my position.....

Considering that nearly 15% of Canadians live in Toronto, it's certainly helping a bunch of Canadians. Having a decent public transit system improves traffic, cost of living, greatly reduces pollution, etc... It makes living in a large city like Toronto more affordable, and hence allows businesses to attract cheaper labour (I thought you'd like that one)... How about helping Canada meet its Kyoto committments ?? Not spending money on security of US citizens, when it's obvious to everyone that spending money on Iraq and Star Wars is more important... Those darkies in New Orleans didn't know how to vote Republican, so why should a Republican government spend money on them.... So the feds shouldn't bother protecting New York buildings from airplanes either... that should be a New York concern.... I mean, blowing up a few buildings in New York doesn't affect anyone in Alabama, does it ???

Hey Montgomery... check out this link to another forum... It says something a bit different from what you're saying, although I'm not sure you'll catch it... Predicted Turn-Around in US Economy

Montgomery: The USA has a deal with Saudi Arabia to PREVENT DEMOCRACY from ever threatening the Saudi royal family.... Does that sound like a solid "pro-democracy" deal.... The USA organized and executed a coup to take out the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran and placed the Shah of Iran in power in the 1950s. Does this sound "pro-democracy". And if you'll remember, (but I suspect your selective memory will not) Saddam Hussain was the USA's buddy. If you're looking for anything that's consistant about US behavior, it would be the support for US-based Big Oil.... not democracy... PS. Here's a good link that will document the USA's sale of Antrax, Mustard Gas components, cyanide, and much more... I'm sure you'll really enjoy reading it.. Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

I don't know why you call him a former-nobody. Jalal Talabani is one of the longest serving figures in contemporary Iraqi Kurdish politics and president of his high school debating club to boot Are you serious? There were protests in Canada, the US, and Europe, millions who demanded that Saddam be left in power. I saw the protesters with their Support Palestine (even though there is no such country) banners; they wanted Saddam to stay in power so he could continue to issue $25,000 cheques to the families of displaced Arab suicide bombers. Did you know that there's a difference between protesting against attacking a country and supporing that country's president.... The protests weren't "pro-saddam"... they were anti-US-policy. Maybe you can get a grown-up to explain the difference to you... According to international law, the war was illegal. There was no justification for the attack. Who's "they"... your little straw men in your fantasy world... They did ?? I'd really like to know who you thing "they" were... Wow... maybe you should take your medicine now.... Er, Talabani was elected by the Iraqi Parliament. America did not put him in power. Did they use the same kind of voting machines that Bush's Repulicans used in Ohio.... ??? Where the exit polls predicted that the Republicans had a 1 in 65 Million chance of winning in Ohio, but somehow the voting machines had the Republicans win... With more votes than there were voters....A good example of America setting up presidents in other countries would be Iran. In the 1950s, the USA organized a coup that took out the democratically elected Massedegh and installed the Shah of Iran. (Massedegh nationalized the oil industry in Iran).

If you were watching what happened (instead of talking) you'd probably note that Jack Layton made Paul Martin keep true to his election promises and socialistic-sounding throne speech delivered earlier in the year.Out of curiosity, do you think that additional money for low-income housing is a bad thing ??? Do you think that additional funding for education is a bad thing ???

Cartman, Northern Ontario lingo for beer is: Case of 24 - "A case of beer", or "a 2-4" Case of 12 - "A 12-pack" Case of 6 - "A poverty-pack" or "a 6-pack" And you should go to the beer store for beer... it's cheaper there.... err...

If you don't have a problem with our largest trading partner, the USA, I don't see how you can have such a problem with the Chinese. I think the USA's record is worse... killing 1.5 million Iraqis between the first and second wars (through sanctioning medicine and water purification equipment).... They started the second Gulf war for imperialistic greed rather than any other reason, killing tens of thousands of Iraqi people.... The USA allows 100,000 of her own citizens to die each year because they cannot afford life-saving health care. If you refuse to acknowledge the abuses of countries you are friendly with, you lose a lot of credibility accusing your enemies of the same abuses....

There is a category of dishonesty called "Lying by omission" which I believe this falls under. The US first put troops on Saudi soil at their request after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia was the springboard for US and allied attacks to free Kuwait. Afterwards, most Amerians left, but since Iraq was still considered dangerous some US troops stayed to deter future attacks. After the first Gulf war, most of the Americans went home from Saudi Arabia. In 2001, George Warmonger Bush started sending troops to Saudi arabia in preparation for their upcoming planned war. Note that this commenced before 9/11.PS. I think the problem is not due to the facts, but rather because of Argus's "not believing due to either ignorance or stupidity, maybe both" bin Laden's group was responsible for attacks on Americans going back to at least 1998, and there are strong suggestions his group was tied in to the original attack on the WTC in 1993. So to suggest that he "lashed out", an interesting euphemism for mass murder, in response to the US gathering forces for a second attack is so much sputum. The attack on the WTC took a long time to organize and was not in response to the US threats against Iraq. It was caused by religious fanaticsm and hatred of those who did not share his religious beliefs and those of his largely ignorant followers. Because they hated freedom ???? More sputum. Iraq was a destabilizing force in the region, and a continuing threat to its neighbours. The US decided that something needed to be done to get at the roots of Mulim fanatacism in the middle east. That meant cultural changes. All Arab states were brutal dictatorships, and the only alternative people saw was islamic radicals who were fighting the various governments. Iraq was perfectly located so that if the US could turn it into a reasonable facimile of a democratic state it would provide a lesson to the rest of the Arab world - there is an alternative to Islamic radicalism. The people of Iran, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia could hardly ignore a functioning democratic Arab state next door. The people of Iran had a fully functioning democracy in the 1950s. The USA (more specifically, the CIA) went into Iran and toppled the Massedegh government and installed the infamous "Shah of Iran". The USA did this because Massedegh nationalized the country's oil. Massedegh had roughly 80% of the popular vote at the time, and ran a totally non-aggressive government. The nationalization was so that the citizens of Iran weren't treated like dogs while only the oil companies American and British employees could ride the busses and go to the theatres. Here's one middle-east case where the USA removed democracy to benefit Big American Oil.In Saudi Arabia, the USA made a deal with the Saudi royal family (in the 1950s) that still holds today. The USA would protect the royal family from any threats, including democracy, using the American military to guarantee the Saudi royal family's security. In return, the Saudi royal family guaranteed American oil companies access to their oil. Here is another case where the USA has prevented democracy from thriving in the middle east to benefit Big American Oil. The Saudi royal family isn't who is financing Al Queda. It is rich Saudi citizens. The royal family want's Al Queda stopped for fear of reprisals against Saudi Arabia, and more specifically, their reign of the country. Paranoid nonsense. The US is commited to free elections. They are not going to be able to control Iraq's government beyond that. The new government will be supported by the Shiite religious leaders, and they won't need the US for anything. So you are suggesting the US spent a vast fortune, not to mention thousands of lives, to gain control of Iraq's oil for a couple of brief years? Ludicrous. Had the USA not attacked Iraq, and UN sanctions be lifted, neither the USA nor Britain (or at least their oil firms) would have had a look at Iraq's oil. It was going to Russia, Holland, and France... the deals were in place.The USA already has its oil companies in Iraq. The main goal has been achieved. Now they have to figure out how to get out of Iraq.... If a new elected government were to try to nationalize the country's oil, the USA could just go in and topple the government (clandestinely, of course) as they did with the Massedegh governent in Iran, and how they tried to do it with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Noone would be the wiser as to who would have killed off the new president, as there is so much violence going on over there anyways.... As a side point, we should look at alternative motives for the Bush administration's attacking Iraq. Everybody in a key position in the Bush administration came from Big Oil... They were all on boards of directors of Big Oil.... And so they shall return to be rewarded for the billions of dollars per year of extra profits that their actions have brought about.... Just like Dick Cheney was rewarded with the CEO position of Haliburton when he, as defense minister, privatized huge portions of the US army and contracted them out to Haliburton.... That is fact... nothing involving parinoia about it...

Should she stay on welfare until the child is 18 How long should they help the unfortunates of New Orleans... a few weeks, or until it's out of the news.... Or how about the novel idea... as long as they need it.... Tha would depend on how much and how fast you learn, how reliable you are, how much you impress your bosses. I knew a girl who started as a cashier at Wal-Mart, a crappy job by any measure. Within a year she was working in the cash office there - only a little more money, but great work experience. She parlayed that job, a year or so later, into a government office job. Several years later she's now a supervisor with 20 people working for her. and how much above minimum wage does she now earn... a dollar or two... And how many "smart" people who get jobs at Wal Mart manage climb above "floor staff"... I guess that's when they're going to raise minimum wage to a decent standard... not until forever...You know, this may be news to you, but the world does not owe you a living. If you don't have any skills or education - likely due to stupid choices you made for yourself - why should some poor business owner be forced to pay you a high salary for work a monkey could do as well? Then why doesn't he hire monkeys... Or raise his prices to adjust for the increased labour cost... everyone else will have to if it is a standardized minimum wage ....

Again, grow up and try discussing things rationally instead of flouncing around showing us what a hissy fit looks like in type. I personally have nothing against single mothers. I said, however, is that single mothers are not in society's interest. And who exactly is having the "hissy fit" ???? And you are in a position to be a judge of this... So should they sell the kids ??? Should they be forcibly ripped from their mother's wombs? Should the mothers be prevented from ever seeing their child for fear they might get attached to it ??? You seem to know all of the answers... Why don't you enlighten us ???? I challenge you to find any legitimate study that shows that more than 1% of single mothers on welfare fall into the category you have described. I would say that in the majority of cases, they did not plan to be single mothers, and often didn't plan the pregnancy at all.... Your painting all single mothers with the same brush (Mike Harris's old one) really paints a bad picture of you. This is a very sad fact that you bring out. An impoverished single mom with child has a hard time attracting a mate, and ever getting back to a "normal", "Brady Bunch" life. It appears to me that you hold this against the unfortunate citizens instead of empathizing with them.Drawing a parallel to the situation in New Orleans, there were a lot of poorer black people and elderly who did not have the wherewithall to get out of the city after the tragedy struck. They did not ask to be put in the situation, and cannot get out without assistance. Most of these unfortunate girls who have become impregnated out of wedlock do not have the wherewithall to get out of the situation they are in. Would you advocate not helping the poor people in New Orleans the same way that you advocate not helping these young girls.???

Didn't say that. I said that the continued influx of low skilled workers keeps the labout cost of low skilled workers down. And how much lower than the cost of living should these "lazy, shameless" people go.... I'll agree that a single adult with no significant disabilities should be out trying to find employment, and generally can. However, a person who has disabilities that prevent them from finding gainful employment shouldn't be put into your "shameful" category. From your earlier posts, I see that you have an extreme distast for single mothers.... a significant enough distaste that maybe you should seek treament. There are many single mothers, and single preganant girls.... I'll have to ask you if you know how they got pregnant... You'll have to agree that in most, if not all of these cases, a male was involved.... That being the case... where are the delinquint fathers ??? Maybe you should elaborate on which single mothers should be "shamed" .... How about the ones whose husband died, leaving them with children .. should they be shamed... How about the ones whose husbands ran off.... How about single the ones whose religion/family/morality wouldn't let them terminate pregnancy? (where the prick ran off... pun intended) Should all of the above be "shamed" and made to live a subsistance living ? Or do you suggest they sell their babies so that they can meet your definition of a decent minimum-wage earning citizen ??? So you think Ontarians should take whatever jobs that are offered, no matter "however poorly paying they are". Should a single mom go off and get a job at the Becker's store for $6/hour and leave her child unattended.... or in a provincially run day-care ??? The problem is that before you get the $20hr job with benefits you need to take the $14hr job with fewer benefits. Before you get that one you need to take the $9hr a job with no benefits. Since minimum wage is nowhere near this figure yet, why don't you talk about the $6.75/hr job.... And while this "shameful" mother is our earning her $225/week take-home pay, who's looking after the child/children. Perhaps she can pay $75 or $100 per week of this to a neighbour to look after the kid.... Leaving her with a take-home pay of $125 to $150/week. She can then pay rent, of say $400 per month (for a dive) and buy food and clothing for herself and her child with the remaining $25-$50 per week. I'm sure she can afford to do it if she brings the kids to the soup kitchen right after she gets home from work... or maybe boils dandilion leaves for them like your friends do.... Perhaps it would help if she could "borrow" work clothes from other people's clothes lines... using this kind of thrift, maybe she could do it... Perhaps she could put her child/children into a provincially funded day-care program, and we could pay $17/hour for that so that the "shameful" mother can feel less shameful... and be a real contributor to society with the taxes that come off of her $6.75/hour job... That would be really nice to subsidize the "shameful" mother to the tune of in excess of $10/hour so she could feel less "shameful", and be a real meaningful contributor to our society.... As for your presented model of shooting up the corporate ladder, for an unskilled person to skyrocket from $6.5/hour up to $20/hour (plus benefits).... I must just be way too pessimistic... Maybe you could tell me (and all the shameful ladies) which companies allow this kind of progression through the ranks???? MacDonalds ??? Wall Mart ??? Burger King ??? Staples ??? I guess that's when they're going to raise minimum wage to a decent standard... not until forever... Well, if our government won't put any burdon on business to make them pay a better minimum wage, then it is cheaper to keep all these "shameful ladies" at home looking after their kids with a welfare cheque than it is to pay for provincially funded day care...

What a racist statement. Like Omar from IraqTheModel said, people like you think of the Iraqi people as subhuman second-class people who deserve nothing better than to live under a massmurdering dictator. Shame on you. You don't seem to understand things very well. Are you reading invisible stuff written between the lines, hidden with the WMD's ?? Were you sleeping when 60% of the population risked life andlimb to vote in January? And your version of freedom ="Risking life and limb"??? Nope. The Iraqis did not vote for who the US favored. And that's a surprise to you ??? We're a nation of thieves that takes Saddam's blood money... How about elaborating on how Canada took Saddam's money ???

Europe wanted the sanctions lifted so they could continue to sell Saddam weapons, just like before. After all, Europe armed Saddam to the teeth. They only wanted some of that blood money that jean Chretien was getting from Saddam. Europe wanted the sanctions lifted because they were wrong and immoral. They also wanted the contracts for Saddam's oil to go forward as they should have.And WHO armed Saddam to the teeth... and did Saddam hide them with his invisible WMDs ?? Well, his army didn't have weapons.. and couldn't put up a fight because he didn't have any weapons... did he ?? ... All of the weapons that the USA gave them to use on Iran were destroyed in or after the first Gulf War.... The old clunker Soviet weaponry they had was also destroyed during and after the first war...

The USA was Saddam's biggest customer during the Oil-for-food program, buying 2 million barrels of oil per day. And was this as corrupt as taking over another country, killing thousands of Americans, killing 10's of thousands of Iraqis, spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war to get oil for their previous (and future) employers... so much taxpayer's money that they didn't have the resources to handle a national emergency at home.... I don't think so....

Whether in Bahrein, Tokyo, Moscow or Freeport, a private bank's decision about the mix of euros or dollars to hold as a reserve currency depends on many factors. One major factor is the preferences of the private bank's customers. blah, blah, blah.... August, you may with to read an interesting article about the potential effects of a switch to the Euro. Instead of just pretending you know something about economics, why don't you look at this link and quote, and maybe you'll just learn something. Macroeconomic Analysis of switch to Euro WTF? Only a small portion of profits go into royalties? BD, do you have any idea how much it costs to produce oil in Iraq? Do you know what the world price of crude is? Do the math - and I'll help you. I wise old owl sat on an oak... the more he heard, the less he spoke... the less he spoke, the more he heard, now August, don't you wish you were as wise as that old bird... IOW (to use one of your favourite acronyms) If you keep blabbing nonsense and don't listen, you'll never learn anything, and remain ignorant.Do the math - tens of billions of dollars profit each year.... why would they bother going for that.???? Well said Black Dog. Anybody home ??? I didn't think so. Billions of dollars per year in profits... why would anyone want all that work.... Maybe if you read some of these books you'd have some credibility. It would appear to me that you haven't read any of them, and probably wouldn't understand them. And this applies to Oil in Iraq ??? ... or has any bearing on reality outside Augustland ???