newbie

Yeah, but Clinton went in with NATO and was successful. On June 30, 1999, the UN Security Council approves a resolution that authorizes the plan for peace in Kosovo by a vote of 14-0. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/kosovo-timeline1.html

Boy, as if thay ain't been heard enought here. Please thank Dubya for that because before 911 WE HAD NO ENEMIES.

Yeah, and don't forget they had info about Bin Laden planning an attack in America the month before. Bush blamed intelligence agencies. Or, maybe he just didn't bother to read the memo?

Not entirely true. They can vote against the government, but will lose their cabinet post. Mr. Joe Comuzzi, a cabinet member, voted against the bill. And I commend him for representing his constituents.

Also, it's against the law not to vote in Australia. Interesting concept.

A quote off the site you provided: Ann Coulter was also the one who advocates terrorism when she said that Timothy McVeigh should’ve driven his truck into the New York Times building rather than the Oklahoma City building. I’m not saying that those comments justify anyone saying she should be raped, but she shouldn’t be surprised that so many people hate and despise her.

sharkman, there are plenty of one sided posters here. Most treat each other with respect, but there are those whose posts border on total trolling and baiting. I think Greg mentioned we should try and take the high road when we feel "attacked" and not give in to our emotions. That isn't always easy.

I don't necessarily disagree. But my point was he was able to secure their support for same sex legislation. I'm not kidding myself either. I realize his days are numbered. But I would like someone to answer my original question.

Good old unbiased Fox News. The issue of folks going into the US is an American security problem, not a Canadian one. They are responsible for stopping anyone going into their country who they perceive is a threat. So if there is a problem, it is their security that is lax, not ours.

If Martin gets in,presuming a minority,what will he need to do to ensure longevity? What issues would be problem areas or areas of compromise in securing unity? I would be interested in hearing from the left how Martin might overcome the image of him "causing the separtist to vote for separtion" a group he tried to buy with advertising money given to his own party. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anwering a question with a question? Well, to answer you he has already proven he can work with the Bloc and NDP. As far as Quebec overall, obviously he has his work cut out for him. In all likelihood, he probably won't be able to recover from Gomery. His successor might have a better chance.

If Harper gets in, presuming a minority, what will he need to do to ensure longevity? What issues would be problem areas or areas of compromise in securing non-confidence votes? I would be interested in hearing from the right how Harper might overcome the image of him "sleeping with the enemy," an enemy he onced denounced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> No problem, and I agree with you re scarascar. He is over the top.

Anyone, right or left, should be dealt with when they post inappropriate comments. And both sides have started contraversial threads. I'm talking about decorum here. Is it that hard to leave out our emotions and take the high road? I know each side is passionate, but why should a few arrogant people be allowed to inflame this otherwise great place? Sorry for the kneejerk, but I've learned a lot here and hate to see it reduced to constant attack mode.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> As far as the title of the thread, look back over some of the other thread topics. This is hardly ranting in comparison. Greg has stated no insults or slurs allowed. In this thread alone, we have: just ignore jack*sses like this, and stupidly inane rant. Then there is yours. I don't know what your background is shoop but telling someone to f--- off meets my criterion for an insult, a slur, and bad manners. You proved my point by resorting to a personal attack. I'm just stating the facts when I say the moderator doesn't deal with these offenses. Yes it is his forum. But as a member it would be nice to have rules enforced when they are breeched time after time.

Thank you for making my point.

ulitmate, you've stumbled onto a very right-wing and pro-conservative site. God help you. I agree. There are many here who attack people not ideas. Unfortunately, the moderator ignores his own rules and lets this happen over and over again. There is little intelligent debate here versus ad hominem attacks.

Yeah, remember Kenneth Starr. What a joke he was. And how many millions did he cost taxpayers? Starr was another religious zealot who overstepped his bounds in his holy quest to bring down the President. Is that what we want in Canada? Starr's mandate was to investigate the Whitewater matter. Yet, there is barely one word about Whitewater in the 445 page report. Furthermore, in dismissing the Hubbell indictment, a federal judge ruled that Starr's efforts to expand his own jurisdiction were legally invalid. http://www.ishipress.com/bullshit.htm

How can you have, in the same poll, "57 per cent of those surveyed agreed the federal Liberal party is fundamentally corrupt and does not deserve to be re-elected" and at the same time have the Libs and Cons tied at 31%?

Canadian law permits companies to register in foreign lands, pay taxes at the local rate and return the profit tax-free to Canada in the form of dividends. Martin is a business man so why the big surprise. Plus, he handed over the company to his sons 2 years ago.

Or too much botox on the upper lip.

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2005/03...and-censorship/

The problem is Shady, the bi-partisan 911 commission reported no link to Iraq, essentially stating that Bush went to war by lying. And if you call the "yellow cake" memorandum credible evidence, then the entire world intelligence was duped by a memo signed by officials who were no longer in Niger's government, and likely forged. Regardless, there was no immenent threat, and it was a ridiculous reason for breaking international law and creating the mess the U.S. now faces.

You linked to the deceitful Michael Moore; I didn't. If you can come up with 59 deceits from Dave Koppel, I would like to hear it. *crickets chirping* <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I linked because Michael Moore is the topic of this thread. I didn't say Kopel was deceitful, just too right leaning to present an impartial presentation of his "facts."

Monty, I'm not suprised you'd use this right-wing approach. I was hoping (too much I'm afraid) for a little non-partisan and objective critique. This line from the preface made it pretty clear that little objectivity, and hence credibility, would be found in the report. Whether or not you agree with me on every single item, I think you will agree that the evidence is undeniable that Fahrenheit 9/11 is filled with deceit. http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm Thank you Mr. Kopel for making up my mind for me. I did manage to read through it, but was not totally impressed given the excessive right wing ranting. Aside from poetic license, I think Mr. Moore's movie does accomplish what it intended; to make some of us think about the abuses of power. If anything is undeniable, it is that.

Here you go: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f9...index.php?id=16 Care to debunk?