newbie

Well, sometimes all you need is 30 seconds. The clip I saw he completely shut down the guest and kept saying "Shut up." I wouldn't watch any journalist who displays that type of rude behaviour. He reminds me of the school yardbully, much like Robert Novak.

I think, BHS, it's the end of mankind coming: SSDD.

I beg to differ, but the Liberals did compromise big time on bill C-38 In what way? Paid them off, you mean. I think that is one of the things Alberta is annoyed at, especially since they get to pay a big chunk of the bribe. Unsupported allegations, eh? I suspect you, and others of your ilk, with your slavish devotion to the Liberals no matter what, are a major reason why so many westerners feel they don't want to be a part of Canada any longer. Corruption is one thing, but corruption which is openly supported by central Canada is quite another. I can understand westerners questioning just what they have in common with people like you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am proud to live in Alberta and have many friends who have opposing views. We get along just fine: a little thing called tolerance and respect for the other's point of view. Life is more than politics, but maybe not to you. We can argue endlessly over semantics (compromise for instance) and I'll never convince you and probably vice versa. A minority government is all about compromise, and to my eyes there has been plenty of it (unlike Harper who pulled his support back in the middle of an investigation of alleged crimes.) When corruption and criminal activity committed by an member of parliament is proven in a court of law, then I'll accept it. Anyway, this is way off topic.

Poor Bobby. He can sure dish it out, but flees like a chickenhawk when a little flame(or is that Plame) is applied.

I beg to differ, but the Liberals did compromise big time on bill C-38 and the budget. They were able to use ideas from the ND party and got the Bloc vote. This was democracy in action, the way it should be in Ottawa. I'm glad we have a minority government, where parties have the opportunity to present their ideas. Harper did support the gov't budget but pulled back when unsupported allegations surfaced from Gomery. That was his choice to become involved, but he let bipartisan rhetoric and utterings from an unfinished commission blur his participation.

Are you sure? http://dawn.thot.net/election2004/issues52.htm

Gotta jump in here. I went through this with my father and you can't just remove a person from one nursing home and place him/her in another. THERE IS NO ROOM, thanks to the Klein administration. There simply aren't enough beds, especially where I live. And we could not keep him at home due to his medical needs. Just realize this is not a black and white issue.

Sort of reminds me of the Bush proclamation, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." That might be an idea for a number of folks on this forum. Parish doesn't speak for Canadians and neither does the good General.

Well, the sky hasn't fallen yet like the cons predicted. I'll bet the # of SSM's haven't gone through the roof yet either. In other words, bill C-38 hasn't really affected too many lives, except maybe to intensify the rightwing's pre-existing antigay sentiments.

1

Pre-emptive means a strike is inevitable, and you stop it by acting. What that policy entails is damaging a nation based on the idea they might someday become able to challange the US. How can this policy garner anything but resentment from the world community? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly SirSpanky. For the record here's the list: as per http://encarta.msn.com/column_nukes_tamimh...osgotnukes.html Warheads United States - 10, 455 Russia - 8,400 China - 400 France - 340 Israel - 250* United Kingdom - 200 India - 65* Pakistan - 40* North Korea - 8* Astericks indicate our best guess I know the pro-invasion posters would like me to have included those countries who are activitely thinking about getting nukes(wannabees - Egypt, Libya, Syria, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, and Serbia and Montenegro) and those countries who might be bluffing. After all, USA and their mightly coalition (?) did invade Iraq on a bluff. So who will the USA take on next?

Why, because I myself admit I am a redneck and anti-gay? You seem to think that is a bad thing, I think of it as healthy and productive =) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually no. It is an opinion, and one that is shared by many Albertans that I've come into contact with. But it is this type of thinking (right or wrong) that has branded Alberta as being narrow-minded and intolerant (red neck and anti-gay). And hey, if it works for you, great. I'm just responding to the title of the thread, and am not entirely sure if the stereo-types are out moded.

deleted

Again, the above quote is indicative and illustrative of why this thread was initiated.

Check out the name of the thread. The rational perhaps for this thread is that Alberta has been branded as being red-neck and anti-gay. There is a reaon for that. Many have already acknowledged they're anti-gay, and redneck is a name (I don't like it either) used loosely for a radical conservative. I think takeanumber was right on with his comments about civility. And that, to me, is entirely on topic as it relates directly to the reputation Alberta has garnered across the country.

Unless you're talking about a cigarette, it is also derogatory.

Thank you crazymf. It's not "just a word" to some folks so I appreciate your not using it in the slang context.

So glad you cleared that up for us.

Do you wonder at all crazymf why this thread was created?

deleted

Here are the last two lines of the above indicated article:"The real intolerance in contemporary society springs from those who are determined to destroy or subjugate traditional religion and family relationship. Perhaps some of the fault lies with the former lack of tolerance on the part of those religions." I support gay marriage, and take great umbrage with the implication that somehow my position might be viewed as intolerant and destructive to traditional marriage and the family. In fact I count myself as very tolerant, as I believe both "unions" can co-exist. Oh, and I live in Alberta.

Interesting, given the lead line on the webpage: “We don’t do body counts” General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

Canuck E Stan, do you perhaps have a little too much time on your hands?

Well, I just figured it was common knowledge re the death toll of American troops in Iraq. But to be proper how about this link from the U.S. Department of Defence: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

Not sure what news media you read or listen to, but I have to dispute your assertions. There have been over 1700 U.S. troop casualites in Iraq: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm and the costs of the war will most certainly reach 200 billion + if they haven't already: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/issues/m...highcost/us.pdf As I recall I don't think there were a lot of suicide bombers in Iraq prior to the US invasion, nor much terriorist activity. All indications were that Saddam had little or nothing to do with Osama and his organization (I'm sure I can find a link if you require it). The world is definitely not as safe as before 911. The invasion created, IMO, a mass movement from a small organization. London's home grown terriorists prove the point.