newbie

Thanks you for your comments. An honest voice from America finally.

"Allegation", isn't that the politically-correct word meaning Liberals' corruptions? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uh, no Betsy. It was a word used by the R.C.M.P. in regards to the opposition complaint.

From the RC's themselves yesterday: Former RCMP Commissioner Norman Inkster rejected the notion that investigators are being used as political pawns during the election campaign. He told CTV's David Akin the RCMP officers will approach the investigation as they would any other. "They look for corroboration of evidence that might have been given to them or information that might have been given to them to see whether there's some substance to the allegation. So that's the review process," Inkster said. www.ctv.ca A L L E G A T I O N, get that folks?

Oh puhlease leave the Constitution alone. Read what you will into the mention of God and his religious affiliation, I have a copy of the Constitution and I can't find a reference to his being a Christian. As has been stated numerous times in these postings we have the freedom to choose how we worship, where and of what. No more need be done except maybe a little tolerance on all our parts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're making my point. But FTA interprets that in the preamble, the "God" our country was founded on was based on, at the time, Christian values. My take on it is that to make us more tolerant as you suggest, we may at some time in the future have to alter our constitution to reflect that.

Sorry to wreck this little Con love fest, but I believe Harper will probably die on the first confidence vote.

My post was in response to RCMP criminal investigation of the Liberal party. And the question is still on the table. Who in the current Liberal party has been charged of a crime? And if they aren't charged, is it the "rights" position that the RCMP is corrupt?

Please list for us the MP's in the current Liberal Government that have been charged with a crime.

I think our country is changing. And while our preamble implies a Christian Deity, it may be necessary to adjust our beliefs and perhaps our constitution to include other denominations and religions, especially the more diverse our society becomes. As BubberMiley indicates, should our Supreme Being not include all faiths?

Where does it say that "Canada" blames the U.S. in this article? You have one guy who is quoted.

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps you should read the articles before you link to them. There is nothing in that story about her getting expelled for her antics against Bush--although the CBC cleverly words their "news" article to suggest this was the reason. She was not expelled for her antics against Bush, but for criticizing Martin. I thought everyone knew that. She admitted it herself the very next day. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok, one last time Monty. Next time READ the article. And try and put 2 and 2 together. Stomps doll, cursing Americans = dismissal. Martin told reporters that while he has defended the controversial MP's right to express her views frankly, he "cannot, as leader of our party and the government caucus, tolerate behaviour that demeans and disrespects others." What the hell part of that don't you understand. Sheesh!

Please get therapy for your Carolyn Parrish fetish. It is becoming very old on this forum. Obviously, she is the only Liberal that you rely on for your pathetic attacts. She was dealt with. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html Get over it!!

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Paul Martin did nothing about Carolyn Parrish's antics. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, right: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rish041118.html

double post

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> The question still stands. Clinton didn't invade Iraq and he offered more to the table than pre 911Bush. Oh, and Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott had much to do with countering Clinton's terrorism legislation. http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/pearly/htmls/...-terrorism.html. I think you are scared of the numbers Monty. Here's a little help: http://www.iraqbodycount.net and http://icasualties.org/oif. That'a a minimum of 27,000 that died under Bush's watch. But be aware, it's a MINIMUM.

Actually it has been verified Sven suffers from bipolar disorder. While that does not exclude him from responsibility of criminal activity, it can partly explain his actions. And if you weigh this one mistake against all the good this man has done for human rights in this country, it would be a unfair judgement.

And you once called me mean spirited?

The reason the Conseravtive dropped the word from their party is: Progressive Conservative = oxymoron.

Carolyn Parrish was a loose cannon and was dealt with. And it was tame compared to what the US ambassadors had to say about Canada. Keep it in perspective.

Monty, I guess it was Novak that went: http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/20.../ap2397980.html Now isn't he the guy that sold out, on live TV, the name of a CIA agent? Yeah, he will definitely fit in well over at Fox. Now as far as your ranting about bias, you should try and talk Rupert Murdoch into buying some Canadian media. Then this paragon of virtue could enlighten all of Canadians with his tabloid journalism that has been so successful in the U.S. The "right" should eat that up given results in America. Oh, and while MSM may get some things wrong in their reporting, at least they don't make them up. http://mediamatters.org/items/200410040006.

Monty, you might be skeptical of MSM reporting due to its bias, but they're very tame compared to the competition over at Fox. I like this quote: "If you watch ABC news for 48 hours, you will detect a lefty bias in story choice and interview subjects. If you watch Fox News for 48 seconds, the righty bias will stomp you on the head." http://www.slate.com/id/93999 And I hear they have the great Bob Novak and Tucker Carlson on board. A great fit.

Well, at least the first statement is sound. Canada would never start a war by invading another country for their oil. As far as the rest of the rant, I'll chalk it up to a little too much egg nog.

I can't seem to find a reference to this person being a senior executive in the current Liberal party. Could you help me with a link or two?

An idiot? What a comment on Chirstmas morning yet. No, I understand how things work. I was just pointing out that we apparently have the lowest unemployment in 30 years vs. the rising American unemployment rate. moderateamerican was on a rant and I felt I had to respond. And you're right; I don't think our countries compare well on a lot of topics, from the economy to the military. Anyway, Merry Christmas.

I think that's a right wing maneuver. Bush advocates brand those who don't agree with the president as treasonous.

Here's a couple of sites to indicate employment rates that moderateamerican alluded to. I think you'll agree that since Bush took office, the unemployment in the States rose proportionately. http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-2...0/chart-p83.htm http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/j...s.cfm#recession