newbie

August, who are you trying to convince?

Do you think Bush gives a s--- about backward countries. Syria pulled due to US sanctions, Egypt has been allies to the States for years, voting rights for women in Saudi Arabia (wahoo, now if we could just get rid of those pesky body mutiliations). I'm glad you think Bush is such an humanitarian. Personally, I think he is a proven liar that only does things, like invasions, that will benefit him and the U.S. And to quote Martin (cover your eyes kids) "The U.S. is our neighbour, not our nation."

Jerry, funny you mention that, since the real target, Osama (remember him) wasn't in Iraq, and no ties from Saddam to 911 (911 commission), and virtually no terrorism until Dubya carpet bombed Baghdad. Hmmm, you can't really blame me for thinking that Bush didn't really have any other motive, him being an oilman himself and buddy Dick a Haliburton man.

Assuming Harper gets a minority, how is he going to handle confidence votes and a Liberal senate?

Jerry, do you honestly believe that companies like ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and TotalFinaElf are not going to benefit in Iraqi oil? You are totally naive to think this is just about ridding the world of some radical islamists.

Well, the UN, like I said, did not sanction Bush's invasion. But if there was agreement from the security council, of course Canada would have gone. Thank God saner minds recognized the illegality of Bush's plunder for oil and prevailed that day. If you're going to trash the Americans' decision at least be informed. 95% of the oil is still under contract to the French, Germans and Russians. A link??

Wow! That was unpartisan. I would suggest strongly not to be swayed by anyone on this forum. Do your own research. All the leaders have fairly clear websites when you can get a very good understanding of the issues.

[quote name='Hicksey' date='Jan 13 2006, 08:06 PM' post='88159 Where did I say it did? The leaders in question blindly followed the UN as usual. There was no thinking involved. Well, the UN, like I said, did not sanction Bush's invasion. But if there was agreement from the security council, of course Canada would have gone. Thank God saner minds recognized the illegality of Bush's plunder for oil and prevailed that day.

I think history will treat him fairly and not tie him to any of the so-called "scandals." It will show his entire administration was exonerated by Justice Gomery, and he'll be praised for his financial and employment record.

oops, obiously a weak moment. I forgot how you cons like to ignore Harper's true ideology. My bad. Enjoy the slide if/when Harper gets in.

So refute them. Your leader can't.

The UN security council didn't sanction Bush to go into Iraq.

Funny that Harper has stepped away from some of his past comments. I present but a few of his gems. "Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory." - Stephen Harper, supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, April 1, 2003. "Thank you for saying to our friends in the United States of America, you are our ally, our neighbour, and our best friend in the whole wide world. And when your brave men and women give their lives for freedom and democracy we are not neutral. We do not stand on the sidelines; we're for the disarmament of Saddam and the liberation of the people of Iraq." - Stephen Harper, Friends of America Rally, April 4, "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task." - Stephen Harper in his article "It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada," December 12th, 2000. "A culture of defeat..." - Stephen Harper, describing the Atlantic provinces, May 2001. It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act." - Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997

Now that's just not fair. :angry:

Betsy must love two of my favourites: how they plan on getting rid of the Kelowna agreement and turning their back on Kyoto.

[quote name='scriblett' date='Jan 13 2006, 10:37 AM' post='87960 I beg to differ newbie, I havn't seen any hate or venom much at all, and none from the conservatives. I have however, seen hate and venom from one left wing poster in particular, possibly 2?. The signature of that poster makes the case, and none which adds to reasonable debate or discussion. I won't mention names but check out initials M.B. and a few of the S's. It's there and a search will reveal plenty.

Everything is a scandal to a Conversative

Liberals that I know don't stoop to the level of your venom, hence the silence. Enjoy your con lovefest and hatred. More liberal smear from someone who knows nothing about me. Comment about quiet liberals and all of a sudden you're full of venom and hate. Talk about some open-minded people willing to discuss why that is. "your" was meant to apply to the cons in general that frequent this forum. I don't hate anyone. But please look back over a few posts and you will see the venom from the cons that I speak of.

Uh, the add was pulled and you folks seem have trouble understanding that. Martin went on TV last night and explained it. Plus, speaking about attack adds, please remember it was the Conservatives whose negative add was shown first. Try and keep things in perspective.

Yeah, namely that I want to have minority rights protected. Of course the word "abortion" isn't in the constitution; neither are a lot of things. But the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Are you saying you are for racial and ethnic quotas? Even to the point of forcing Universities to reject qualified black applicants because their quota has been over-reached? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution doesn't mention either abortion or the "right to privacy" from which Roe v Wade draws it's decision, the latter being a judicial creation of "emanations of penumbras" or whatever the hell Blackmun said in between chillum hits. So, you're uneasy about the appointment of a judge who reads the Constitution accurately and doesn't want to treat minorities like statistical cattle. Says something about you, maybe. Roe v. Wade was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that laws against abortion violate the constitutional right to privacy. The decision overturned all state laws that banned or restricted abortion. That should speak for itself. In regards to quotas, there was a reason for affirmative action and educational quotas that is too lengthy to get into here. But my main issue was/is how objective will Alito be in regards to abortion issues in the future, especially when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade.

deleted, went off topic

The question remains did he know it was private. This was a number of years ago, and I'd give him the benefit of doubt.

Shoop, you of all people should recognize sarcasm.

Oh, wait a minute, I stand corrected: http://www.thehammer.ca/content/view.php?n...21-klein-pickle