newbie

Um, remember Pat Robertson??

Another perspective: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/...ticle_popular_2

This bickering back and forth is really useless. It's the old "my Dad is better than your Dad" mentality. But allow me to say that I respect all members of Parliament and do not tar all parties with the same brush, unlike a few members on this forum. I might lean left, but I try not to let my bias cloud my judgement. All of us are partisan to some extent, some more than others. I don't mind Liberals being criticised if they've deserved it, but not simply because they're Liberal. Same goes for Conseravtive and NDP. So, I've decided not to partake anymore in this type of endless and mindless tirade against political leaders. No one's mind is going to be changed here; just more of the same old tired political rhetoric.

You must not have seen him in action in the House of Parliament during Question Period.

I'm not sure if you're referring to all maple trees or just sugar maples found down east. My sister on Vancouver Island has some big leaf maples in her backyard, and her neighbours have Vine and Douglas maples.

Well, saying that "at least" he tried to unify the country "in his own way" is somewhat meaningless. So did Mulroney. I'm sure Chretien's ultimate aim was not to divide the country, though that was the result. Trudeau made it clear on many occasions that he was opposed to seperatism in large measure because he thought Quebec would be much better off within confederation than as a sort of rump state out on its own. So it wasn't so much his love of Canada as his love of Quebec which made him seek accomodation within confederation for Quebec. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, let me clarify. Trudeau didn't try to unify the country by appeasing Quebec like Mulroney and his Meech and Charlottetown disasters. He wanted every Province in Canada to be equal partners. And while he might have favoured his home province, he didn't give in to them.

True. As was Trudeau, as was Chretien, as is Martin. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Argus, I have to wonder if any politician in your books is not arrogant and self important. And oh, while we're at it, I think you forgot to add Mr. Harper to your list.

I would really like a link or two to back this up. If he was a "known separatist" he certainly had changed by 1982 when he apparently refused to offer any deals to Quebec to sign the charter. Maybe you can enlighten me further.

Arrogance was certainly his downfall. He said that MPs were nobodies a hundred feet from parliament hill. Well, if that was how he thought of members of parliament how do you think he thought of ordinary Canadians? There's no doubt he was highly intelligent and highly educated, but he was doing things on a grand level with no experience in them. And while he was better at polling his cabinet, at least, than those who followed him, he ultimately thought more of his own views than anyone elses - even when they had more knowledge of the actual subject than him. Before his death he admitted that the "multicultaral" experiment had been a mistake and hadn't turned out how he had hoped. Too late came wisdom, which does not always accompany intelligence. But that's the sort of thing you can't go back on, can't reverse. Canada is changed forever, and it remains to be seen whether we will eventually be able to accmodate all the different cultures, blend them together, and not lose our heritage and sense of what it means to be a Canadian. Whether Trudeau's temperament could ever have accomodated fiscal restraint is debatable. Personally, I don't think so. He wasn't a man to let mere numbers stand in his way. He wanted what he wanted, and he wasn't going to have anyone say no becuase the money wasn't there. Could Trudeau have been a "good" PM? On what yardstick? We haven't had a "good" PM in my lifetime so it's kind of hard to compare. Trudeau was as capable of corruption and dishonesty as Mulroney or Chretien. He was just generally slicker about it. He was certainly more of a leader than Chretien or Martin, though. I would say he and Mulroney rank close together. Trudeau had more education and was more intelligent. Mulroney had more real-world experience and a lot of savvy about how large organizations worked. Both of them were good, neither was great. Trudeau's lasting legacy is a multi-ethnic society where many members have nothing in common with their countrymen and enormous suspicion of them - and the debt. Mulroney's legacy is the GST and more debt. I would say neither man left the country in as good a shape as he found it - much less in an improved state. Ivory tower intellectuals, and to a certain extent that was what Trudeau was, tend to be somewhat divorced from reality. They tend to believe too move in theoretical models which look good on paper but fail in the real world. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with most of your comments Argus, but I'd give Pierre an A for effort. At least he tried to unify the country, albeit in his own way. Yes, he was arrogant, but that's what's perceived sometimes when one tries to reach one's goal undaunted. If he did nothing he'd be perceived as indecisive or lame duck. He was a die-hard federalist, and I really believe everything he did politically had that theme in mind. I think the West needs to get over Trudeau and move on.

theloniusfleabag, let the "right" have their little biased newspapers (Canada Free Press and The Telegraph), since they claim practically every other news source is left slanted.

I think there are those of us who believe the two concepts (science and religion) can live together. I am a skeptic when it comes to the bible as archeology just doesn't back up most of the claims or the history of the old testament. As far as Jesus goes, there isn't any secular evidence he even existed. But having said that, I still believe a higher power got things started, but not 10,000 years ago, more like a few billion.

You'll get lots of opinions on Trudeau. I think he put Canada on the map. Folks in the west aren't fond of him and they'll give you plenty of partisan reasons. You'll hear that he was arrogant, but he stuck to his guns. Some will try to say he favoured Quebec, but he was a devoted Federalist and would not cater to the French, particularly when it came to our constitution. But I'll stop here and let the flamers take over.

I don't think you get the big picture here. Bush makes policy based on Christian right rhetoric. Robertson, with Falwell, speak for the moral majority. "Only words" created the KKK, IRA, white supremecy movement, and ultimately al qaeda. Ironically, all based on religion. I'm not trying to incite fear, but rather demonstrate the seriousness of Roberton's statement. This goes far beyond freedom of speech, right up to inciting hatred and uttering threats. It is criminal activity as far as I'm concerned.

As a follow-up, the reason I said I fear these "evangelists" more can be found in some of their rhetoric: http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/ http://www.mintruth.com/wiki/index.php?Jer...alwell%20Quotes To say they are just 2 individuals with inflamed opinions would not be accurate. Their ministries (Christian Broadcasting Network and Jerry Falwell Ministries) reach millions of people and influence the current US administration. After reading through some of their quotes I deem these fellows quite dangerous. True, they haven't killed anyone (yet), but are more than capable of inciting hatred and intolerance that could eventually lead to violence. I cite them only as a result of their overt hyprocricy.

I don't know what's worse. Ms. Parish stomping on a Bush doll and calling Americans idiots or "after September 11, when George Bush had nothing to say about how we gave shelter and protection to thousands of Americans; and after that incident in the skies above Afghanistan, when two U.S. pilots on speed killed four of our soldiers, and the response of Bush's Republican Party was to hold fundraisers for the pilots." from http://www.andrewspicer.com/article52.html.

Right Toro. I think he'd have JC's blessing too. Now those people (Falwell, Robertson) scare me more than Bin Laden.

Well, if you include terrorism in general, Bush was not the first to step up to the plate. In fact, his predecessor had done much to lay the foundation. Here's a few links: http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/adm-anti-terror-otl.html http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabot...r_Efforts.shtml http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/Clin..._Terrorism.html

Tell that to these folks. http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d1024ks.htm http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/edavidsson.htm

There seems to be a definite insistence in this thread to take stands. In terms of Bush and terrorists, is it not quite possible that you can be with neither? Why do some folks here only see things in terms of black and white? I've been accused of fence sitting by knee jerk reactors because I like to take my time with complex issues and sort things out. I think we should appreciate each other's differences instead of chastizing those who, like me, tend to take the grey and analytical approach. I stand for a lot of things and ideals; I just try to be a little more diplomatic when expressing them.

LOL crazy.

Well, I guess you mean me and I'll talk all I want. I do condemn this act. This is a human rights issue, not a grab for oil. If the States move on Iran, they best check on all the rights violations of their buddies, the Saudi's. Because you see, they think they can have it both ways.

Just a little quip: you agricultural folks are quite proud of yourselves re your contribition to society and so you should be. But quotes like "We go to work hard everyday because thousands of welfare cases depend on us" and "Proud to be White and Albertan, earn your own damn money" are a little hypocritical when you consider it's the farmers who's hand out is first when they run into trouble. Most other business in this country do it ALL on their own.

Good old Link. I don't take much of what he says or Prof. Craig with any degree of seriousness. Like I said in another post, this "movement" starts to kick up a little dust every few years with Lib majorities or perceived blunders. I think what the polls reflect is just a little anger and frustration, not serious separation ideology. When push comes to shove, Albertans will reject any notion of isolationism.