Conservatives

[Black Dog]

Where is the fear mongering that is going on? Please provide examples

How about the constant drumbeat that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage and open the door to institutionalized pedophilia? Just skim through a few of Alliance Fanatic's posts on the subject to get a feel for the vibe.

I see quite the opposite in fact. I see headlines in papers promoting the issue, I see gay magazines on the shelves, there are gay bars in most decent size towns, I see gay pride parades in the streets. Therefore I am to assume that gay people have many rights. There are no fear mongering tactics that maybe a few would engage in, stopping these people from exercising their rights.

I see black people on the streets, black magazines and Caribana parades celebrating black culture. That doesn't mean discrimination against blacks doesn't exist. Same goes for gayus. It's been a hard fight for homosexuals to get to where they are today. There's still a long ways to go.

Wow I hear all the time that the left love to make comparisons of health care spending to other countries, to promote their views. Why is that ok, its comparing apples to oranges more so than with military issue, which right leaning people have more of an issue with. I do agree with you on the top heavy military, but we definitely need a broader role than just policing the world.

I don't think comparisons between nations' military spending countries are invalid. But i don't think it should make a difference. We need a military that's big enough to do the job we want it to do. However, that organizational focus is lacking. Figuring out what we want our military to be able to do should be a top priority. Bigger isn't always better.

[Sully]

How about the constant drumbeat that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage and open the door to institutionalized pedophilia? Just skim through a few of Alliance Fanatic's posts on the subject to get a feel for the vibe.

SO WHAT!!!! people are entitled to their opinions, I do not see these people banding together in little armies seeking out homosexual people and beating them (thats wrong if it did happen), I do not see the people who are against the changing of the traditional definition of marriage inciting people to write columns of hate mail or hold little meetings of hate in town halls (thats wrong if it did happen). As for the pedophilia topic, people can make whatever accusations they want its called free speech and its far from hate speech.

As for your comments directed towards AF, that is one mans OPINION, I do not agree with everything he says, but I do not see him inciting hate, just some strange opinions sometimes. But the point you are missing is that his opinion stands for his own views, which you may not like, and those opinions are as important as any of your views. I do not think the definition of marriage should change, I like the idea of marriage representing a MAN and WOMAN. I am not against equal rights for homosexual couples, as I believe the love they feel for each other is the same love heterosexual couples have. But I will never support them in changing the definition. See the only difference you and me have BD is that you sit on one side of the fence and I sit on the other. Can you handle that or do I need to be on your side of the fence to gain your respect. If thats the case my friend you have the real problem and I would love nothing better then to have nothing to do with you.

I see black people on the streets, black magazines and Caribana parades celebrating black culture. That doesn't mean discrimination against blacks doesn't exist. Same goes for gayus. It's been a hard fight for homosexuals to get to where they are today. There's still a long ways to go.

Again what is your point!!!! These people have all rights that you and me have. They are able to do everything I do in life, except possibly have the "title" of marriage, yet they could have an equivalent title, just not called marriage. For people on my side of supporting the traditional definition, we have to see valid and reasonable arguments that would convince us to change our views and for me there are none, nor do I think there ever will be.

SOME PEOPLE may not like other people for what most of us would say is a stupid reason, but that is the world we live in, thats reality. Lets list the people who are discriminated against short and tall, fat and skinny, ugly and goodlooking, jocks and nerds, rich and poor this list goes on and on. Because one person stands up and says something you do not agree with, quit painting society as oppressive and backwards as you make it out to be. Rights take time to develop and society takes time to develop, but it does not mean tradition will always give way to your views. Traditions helped build this society.

I don't think comparisons between nations' military spending countries are invalid. But i don't think it should make a difference. We need a military that's big enough to do the job we want it to do. However, that organizational focus is lacking. Figuring out what we want our military to be able to do should be a top priority. Bigger isn't always better.

I agree I think ratio of military spending to GDP is quite a valid marker across the world, we should not be in line with countries that have no where near our wealth. Also I agree we should focus on Canadian goals for our military, not what the world expects of Canada. I think we should have a reasonable force to defend our borders, a reasonable force to peace keep, and the best equipment money can buy. And a complete revamp of the forces. Cut down the amount of upper level officials in the forces. Get rid of a general and have 3 new soldiers.

[takeanumber]

Superior points BlackDog.

I'll defend old anti-liberal's right to free speech.

I've been torn over how far you can go in restricting hate speech without risking that legislation be turned against the people that it's intended to protect. (See Borovoy: "The New Anti-Liberals").

It's quite the double edged sword.

I confessed that I have new anti-liberal tendencies because I feel as though holocaust denial, and denial of Van der Lufte's contributions should in fact be illegal even in universities. (I'm fully confessing this new anti-liberal tendency.)

There are those who genuinely believe that an institution between a man and a woman is sacred.

There are those who really hate homosexuals, some of them homosexuals themselves, ashamed of the fact that now they're married, with kids, and never managed to find the courage to admit to themselves, little though to world, who they really were.

I think we need to be careful in differentiating our targets.

Nothing is more explosive than family policy (an area in which I've done research), and it's important that we're careful with the former group so as not to unintentially lump them in with the latter group.

As to the solution of upholding marriage as an institution, I suggest three measures:

1. Make divorce illegal, or limit the offending party to 1 marriage. (If a woman is beating her husband, or vice versa, the offending party is restricted to that one marriage and the other is not.)

2. Quintuple the fines for Johns in using prostitutes/escorts. Introduce a measure of public humiliation, publishing pictures in the newspaper would be a terrific measure.

3. Increase the fines and penalties for adultery, including public measures for humiliation. Again, the publishing of pictures...and perhaps forcing the offender to buy a 'closed captioning provided by" spot on TV. "Closed Captioning sponsored by: Ronald Ramsey, who cheated on his wife for (x period of years), (y number of times). Make sure you get a good picture of the offending person.

Seriously, let's make marriage mean something again.

That said, I personally don't see a problem with same-sex marriage. I think actually getting MORE people to commit for longer than 5 years makes for HEALTHIER families.

[Argus]

The victorious COR-Reform-Alliance wing of the Conservative party is going to monopolize the policy creation convention in the fall.

So yeh, it's a concern.

Don't forget that big Klingon faction. And then there's the Romulan alliance too! Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Then again, paranoids generally are.

[Argus]

With health care what we're looking at is a system with costs escalating so fast they'll soon completely take over provincial budgets.

But why are costs escalating? Much of the blame is being pinned on the public system when, in truth, health crae costs are rising across the industrialized world. An aging population, expensive new technologies, infrastructure and perscription drug costs play a role. There's certainly nothing to indicate that that Medicare is inherently unsustainable.

I'm not neccesarily blaming Medicare for the rises - at least not all of them. However, the steep rise makes it absolutely neccesary for us to do whatever we can to control those rises. The current system binds everyone in a straighacket and makes it nearly impossible to explore alternatives and savings.

For example, I'd like to see small user fees in an attempt to discourage too man visits to doctors for people who aren't really sick. Some people go to the doctor every time they get the sniffles. I'd also like to see the option of private payments which would ease the lineups in the public system. And, frankly, I'd like to examine the cost of union agreements which pay everyone in the health care sector too much damned money. I'd also like to cut back on the duties of highly paid RNs, and substitute much lower paid staff for basic duties like changing bedpans and feeding patients. You don't pay someone $60k to change bedpans, okay? Not if you're halfway intelligent about how you spend money.

Would you care to name a few of these policies most people would find abohorant? Most people appear to be against same-sex marriage, for example.

The public seems evenly split on same sex marriage, but I expect much of that is due to the incessant fear -mongering from its opponnents. But look at the Cons' views on abortion. Harper claims its a non-issue, but scratch the surface (like his health critics comments yesterday) and you see a decidely anti-abortion stance,

Harper's reply on abortion was unequivical, leaving himself no wiggle room. Are there anti-abortion types among the Tories? Yup. Are there anti-abortion types among the Liberals? Yup. So? What else have you got? Surely the fact some of them are anti-abortion isn't enough for you to be complaining that they have policies "most Canadians would find abhorrant".

So its purely ego-drive, then? Trade has little to do with "being a player" and more to do with what we have to offer. The ability to project military might and a strong economy are not connected. Look at some of the big economic success stories of the past decades (Ireland, for instance) how many are chatracterized by a large armed forces?

I believe we need a stronger military because the present one is incapable of fulfilling the roles we have assigned to them. It's really that basic. If you want to keep a certain level of readiness in case of national emergencies and still contribute some people to international forces for establishing or keeping peace then we need to have more troops. Canada used to be one of the biggest contributors to the UN peacekeeping forces. Now it's one of the smaller ones, simply because we don't have any people available.

[Argus]

Recruitment.

We can't get the people in.

We can't get people in because the perception (correct) in this country is that the military are given no respect, have lousy equipment, live in lousy, poorly kept bases, and are sent overseas again and again with no time at home to be with their families.

Also, the traditional recruits from 1975-1995 were by and large, white folk from the high unemployment regions.  There's nothing wrong with this fact.

He then goes on to explain why this is terrible.

The military have problems, it's true, but affirmative action is not one of them. It doesn't matter how many dark skinned individuals are in the military. The notion that it will help overseas is laughable. The Americans have lots of dark skinned people in their ranks and nobody is impressed.

It's not just the crappy pay that serves as a barrier.

It's the general treatment by officers.

It's the general treatment of minorities by officers and soldiers.

It's the general image of the armed forces.

The pay is more than adequate for the education and skill level. The problem with careerist, bureaucrat officers has more of an affect on keeping men than recruitment. And minority recruitment is a problem mainly for people who despise the military as thugs anyway.

[maplesyrup]

Lone Quebec Tory throws support behind Liberal

Former Conservative MP Andre Bachand has announced he will throw his support behind the Liberal candidate in his riding, dealing a blow to Stephen Harper's campaign in Quebec.

In a final insult from a disgruntled former Tory, Bachand put his support behind Liberal candidate Christine St-Pierre in his former riding of Richmond-Arthabaska.

"Canada is not ready for a new Conservative Party in power," Bachand said.

How serious a blow is this to Conservative fortunes?

[Kiraly]

How serious a blow is this to Conservative fortunes? 

Well....

...there go all those seats that they were going to win in Quebec.

How serious of a blow? Well, I think the force of a one-year-old blowing out a birthday candle would cause more damage than a Lieberal endorsement by Andre Bachand to the Conservative cause.

Conservatives will still wallow in the low teens in Quebec.

[Kliege]

Andre Bachand riding is certain to go to the Bloc so anything he says means nothing anymore.

[maplesyrup]

Tory Rope-a-Dope Stings PM

By charlie smith

One of the best ways to get elected is to augment a consistent message with a memorable visual image.

For Conservative Party of Canada leader Stephen Harper, this image was a toilet. A $1-million toilet. A toilet that didn't work. A toilet that was paid for by taxpayers as part of a federally financed infrastructure project in Winnipeg.

Harper stood near the toilet on a campaign stop in the city to draw attention to the "waste, mismanagement, and corruption" that he claims has festered within the federal Liberal government.

Harper has repeatedly reinforced this message.

Outside a Saskatchewan hospital, he said "waste, mismanagement, and corruption" deprived the health-care system of necessary funding. Speaking to a business group, Harper promised to increase funding for the auditor general to curb "waste, mismanagement, and corruption".

By turning this federal election into a plebiscite on Liberal financial incompetence, Harper is replicating a successful strategy employed by other right-wing politicians, including former U.S. president Ronald Reagan.

Conservative commentator George F. Will's 1988 book, The New Season: A Spectator's Guide to the 1988 Election (Simon and Schuster), explained how Reagan, a Republican, piled up huge majorities even though registered Republicans were in the minority.

Will wrote that every election offers voters a "plebiscitary choice" on how the government is being run, as well as an "ideological choice". He claimed that Reagan prevented the 1980 election from turning into a referendum on conservative ideology.

Good article on how well the Conservative strategy is working during this election campaign.

[takeanumber]

Well, just as a footnote, it turns out that the Conservative remarks about Abortion are having a impact in Ontario.

The entire 'third party' thing isn't playing well with many women. It seems that many are of the opinion that they already know what is best for their bodies, and don't need a third party to tell them.

I think that maybe that some of the extreme right wing side of the Conservative misogynist colours are showing through.

QUOTE (takeanumber @ Jun 2 2004, 02:08 PM)

The victorious COR-Reform-Alliance wing of the Conservative party is going to monopolize the policy creation convention in the fall.

So yeh, it's a concern.

Don't forget that big Klingon faction. And then there's the Romulan alliance too! Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Then again, paranoids generally are.

(BTW, Argus: COR stands for Confederacy of Regions, an anti-Francophone party that won seats in New Brunswick during the 1990's. They were the main core of the Reform party, and later the Alliance. They are still a force in the Conservative party. Again, just because you don't understand a term, it doesn't mean that you can instantly denegrade somebody using it.)

[DAC]

I feel as though holocaust denial ... should in fact be illegal even in universities.

This one has always puzzled me. I can understand why denying the holocaust might get you a poor mark on a test. But if we are going to make closed minds and stupidity illegal, well, we may have to build an awful lot of prisons!

We restrain slander because it causes injury to other people. In my opinion denying free speech where it does no injury to anybody except perhaps to hurt their feelings is a major step on the route to a totalitarian state. That's why the election spending act is sufficient grounds to vote out anyone who supports it.

[CanadianPatriot]

Ha! I´m sorry, I´ve just been reading through the posts in this forum and I can´t help but burst out laughing when I see some of the responses posted here. Page 2 was especially amusing. I just can´t believe how a group of supposedly mature adults can transform a politcal forum into a playground spat. However, maybe that´s the problem with politics these days. Our political leaders exhibit the same immaturity as some members of this forum. Our country is being run by toddlers!

[Stoker]

So its purely ego-drive, then? Trade has little to do with "being a player" and more to do with what we have to offer. The ability to project military might and a strong economy are not connected. Look at some of the big economic success stories of the past decades (Ireland, for instance) how many are chatracterized by a large armed forces?

The worlds two largest economies seem to differ with your opinion.......

As I said before, what good is trade if you can't protect it? {see Spain vs British Privateers}

Now you use Ireland for an example, so I'll counter with the United Kingdom in the past, the United States in the present and the Chinese in the (near) future.....

Remember what I said about "U.S. proxy force"? That's what this boils down to. If that had been a consideration, we'd be mired in Iraq right now. No, the U.S. can manage its military afffairs without us. We should focus on defending our borders and oceans from incursion.

The Cons are also in favor in letting Parliment (not Cabinet) vote on Cdn troops deployments......so perhaps if Parliment votes to deploy Cdn troops, it is you/the NDP that are out of the fold.

As for defending our Oceans and borders, if you want Canada to be able to do that on our own, we will have to spend alot more on defence then the Tories plan to.....

Remember, being in alliances allows us (and other members) to go "on the cheap" compared to neutral nations when it comes to defence spending. And since we are in a alliance, we have to contribute to it, which we have been skirting our responsibility in.

As i said, like it or lump it, a strong Armed Forces allows us a "chip" at the big "game"..........

We don't now?

Nope.

Again, there's no argument here beyond the childish notion that in order to be significant we have to match toys with the big kids. We have a top-heavy, underpaid armed forces with poor equipment and a ill-defined role. Simply doubling the size of the forces won';t address the main problems.

I agree, it won't stop all the problems, but it will go along to helping.

I don't think comparisons between nations' military spending countries are invalid. But i don't think it should make a difference. We need a military that's big enough to do the job we want it to do. However, that organizational focus is lacking. Figuring out what we want our military to be able to do should be a top priority. Bigger isn't always better.

As I said, we don't have an Armed Forces that can do what we ask of it.......Bigger is better in the context of the CF.......as is more modern and more money.

[Argus]

Well, just as a footnote, it turns out that the Conservative remarks about Abortion are having a impact in Ontario.

The entire 'third party' thing isn't playing well with many women.  It seems that many are of the opinion that they already know what is best for their bodies, and don't need a third party to tell them.

The remark is having NO impact in Ontario, or anywhere else outside the ranks of the fringe set. In fact, Paul Martin made a very similar statement to a high school class the same day, suggesting there should be some councilling involved before abortions.

I think that maybe that some of the extreme right wing side of the Conservative misogynist colours are showing through.

While I happen to be pro choice myself I'd call it more than a little wierd to describe a suggestion that women get councililng prior to abortions as "extreme right wing" and "misogynist."

(BTW, Argus:  COR stands for Confederacy of Regions, an anti-Francophone party that won seats in New Brunswick during the 1990's.  They were the main core of the Reform party, and later the Alliance.

The main core of the Reform party and later the Alliance were disaffected former Tories. EVERYONE knows that.

[Argus]

I feel as though holocaust denial ... should in fact be illegal even in universities.

This one has always puzzled me. I can understand why denying the holocaust might get you a poor mark on a test. But if we are going to make closed minds and stupidity illegal, well, we may have to build an awful lot of prisons!

I agree. There's a world of arrogance in demanding speech be illegal. It's an attitude which says "Well, I understand that this is nonsense, of course, but not everyone is as smart as me."

The answer to lies is truth. You don't ban someone's stupid idea, because someday soon someone will want to ban your stupid ideas. And who knows, maybe one of those stupid ideas isn't so stupid.

[takeanumber]

The answer to lies is truth. You don't ban someone's stupid idea, because someday soon someone will want to ban your stupid ideas. And who knows, maybe one of those stupid ideas isn't so stupid.

Keep talking Argus, you're only embarassing yourself.

We have one version of history with respect to the Holocaust in Canada. You know, Austria is your type of country! Now I don't say that to be mean or to suggest that if you don't like the fact that we have one version of history WRT the Holocaust, you can get the hell out. I mean to suggest that if you don't like the fact that we have only a single version of history, and want to push your version of Holocaust denial, you should consider Austria, because they got a party over there, called the Freedom Party, and that's what they're all about. The Freedom to deny the Holocaust. They're doing quite well, and I'm sure they'd love a white immigrant for a change. I got a friend who works at the embassy there. I can hook you up if you want. Plus, it has an aging population, so there arn't as many Echo-ists, and best of all, for you, their immigration policy is deliberately set up against muslims. So it'd be great for you!

I fully admit that my position is new-Anti-Liberal. I've made peace with it. I believe with freedom of speech comes responsibility, and you know, to spout hatred, especially in the form of Holocaust denial.

The remark is having NO impact in Ontario, or anywhere else outside the ranks of the fringe set. In fact, Paul Martin made a very similar statement to a high school class the same day, suggesting there should be some councilling involved before abortions.

Wrong. See: Wente, Globe and Mail, June 3, 2004.

I suppose to Argus, urban women are the 'fringe set'.

While I happen to be pro choice myself I'd call it more than a little wierd to describe a suggestion that women get councililng prior to abortions as "extreme right wing" and "misogynist."

Pro-Choice conservatives show signs of libertarianism. The Extreme Right Wing/Misogynist wing of the Conservative party, current COR supporters, and 'Dayists" are of the 'government outta my face except to impose our concept of morality on everybody else' types, which is definetly not libertarian.

I'd find the experience of being forced to visit some 'impartial' (which it wouldn't be) person for third party councilling is insulting. Why? Because a woman has the freedom to decide what to do with her body. If she wants an abortion, and opts not to have 'counciling', then that's her right.

QUOTE 

(BTW, Argus:  COR stands for Confederacy of Regions, an anti-Francophone party that won seats in New Brunswick during the 1990's.  They were the main core of the Reform party, and later the Alliance.

 

The main core of the Reform party and later the Alliance were disaffected former Tories. EVERYONE knows that.

The main core of the Reform party is dissaffected tories, which includes the COR people (Most are in fact middle aged to senior citizens...old Tories in the tradition of Leonard Jones. Many of the COR tenants resonate through the Reform Alliance Conservatives to this day.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

[Alliance Fanatic]

He did'nt deny the holocaust. Your twisting around his words to make it sound like he is. Your just trying to create a BIG LIE. Do you know what the BIG LIE is. Geobbels said if you say something enough times it'll come true. So stop using nazi/facist tactics to get try to agitate everybody, and get off the acid and dope I think its damaging your ability to think.

If their was a law against being a complete idiot you'd get a life sentence. So shutup while you can and try thinking normally.

[takeanumber]

I said the freedom to deny the holocaust.

I didn't say that he has actually denied it.

Now who's trying to to create a BIG LIE?

[Argus]

The answer to lies is truth. You don't ban someone's stupid idea, because someday soon someone will want to ban your stupid ideas. And who knows, maybe one of those stupid ideas isn't so stupid.

Keep talking Argus, you're only embarassing yourself.

Y'know, somehow I doubt I'm the one who is making a fool of himself here.

We have one version of history with respect to the Holocaust in Canada.  You know, Austria is your type of country!  Now I don't say that to be mean or to suggest that if you don't like the fact that we have one version of history WRT the Holocaust, you can get the hell out.

Sooo, there's no room in Canada for freedom? Interesting concept, though it echoes much of what you've written earlier. Anyone who expresses ideas you don't like should be put in prison, right? Or be kicked out of the country. And, of course, you get to decide what is history and what is fact, and what political opinions are acceptable.

There are a number of aspects to this dangerous fear of outside opinions which say little good about those who would put iron bars around our ears and eyes. Mainly, the people who hold to such views are fanatics of one kind or another, frightened little people without much confidence in their own views and opinions. They can't debate them, can't defend them, and so strike out in rage at anyone who points out how small and foolish they are.

I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of information. To you that seems to make me some kind of Nazi. That just goes to show how sadly twisted is your knowledge of history and your understanding of life, politics, law and, well, reality, to be honest.

The remark is having NO impact in Ontario, or anywhere else outside the ranks of the fringe set. In fact, Paul Martin made a very similar statement to a high school class the same day, suggesting there should be some councilling involved before abortions.

Wrong. See: Wente, Globe and Mail, June 3, 2004.

I suppose to Argus, urban women are the 'fringe set'.

Margie Wente is hardly my opinion of an unbiased columnist. In fact, she and her newspaper friends she talks about are steadfastly on the left, and they are not the kind of people who would have ever voted Torie. And remember, what did Harper say? He said he planned doing nothing on abortion. And the only reason it's come up is because one of his candidates suggested counselling - which Paul Martin also said. So? People are going to turn against the Tories over this? Not likely. Oh the media will try to play it up as big as they can because they despise any hint of conservative politics, but I don't think this story has much in the way of legs.

Even the old Reform party couldn't get a majority of its members to support banning abortion. If there was a free vote in the house and only the Conservatives were allowed to vote the chance of a ban on abortion passing would be slim and none. With the NDP and BQ pretty much demanding their members vote against such a bill and the Liberals split the chances obviously drop to as near zero as makes no nevermind.

While I happen to be pro choice myself I'd call it more than a little wierd to describe a suggestion that women get councililng prior to abortions as "extreme right wing" and "misogynist."

Pro-Choice conservatives show signs of libertarianism. The Extreme Right Wing/Misogynist wing of the Conservative party, current COR supporters, and 'Dayists" are of the 'government outta my face except to impose our concept of morality on everybody else' types, which is definetly not libertarian.

I love how you keep throwing in these silly little political buzzwords then immediateyl go on to display your nearly complete lack of understanding of politics and political issues. I think it's another example of how ignorant youth zealously embrace political stands of which they really know little or nothing. Complex issues require complex minds and judgement, and frankly, you've shown precious little sign of either.

[Hugo]

Your just trying to create a BIG LIE. Do you know what the BIG LIE is. Geobbels said if you say something enough times it'll come true.

I don't wish to split hairs, but it was Hitler, not Goebbels, who came up with the big lie theory. He first put it forth in Mein Kampf, where he wrote that the "big lie" spread by the Jews of German defeat upon the battlefield in WWI was easy to believe because people make up small lies every day, making them easy to disbelieve, but people will not imagine that an intellectual would deliberately tell a massive lie and will believe the most outrageous theory to be true.

[maplesyrup]

Is that like Mulroney saying" If you throw enough mud against the wall, some of it sticks"?

[Kliege]

Harper as done very well so far, he just needs to keep on message and not allow the media to take him of focus. When they ask a question about something like abortion say one thing about it and if they keep asking keep saying the same thing. These stories have turn out to be one or two day headlines and have yet to survive the weekend. The Liberals efforts to trash him have not worked and they will not work again. Unlike Day Harper can handle the media and he himself has not missteped, as long as doesnt misstep the CPC campaign will continue to make progress.

Most of this stuff will not last the weekend which is good for Harper, with events such as the CPC platform and the D-day events. The Martin platform seems to have been a floop, recyling the same promises the Liberals have been promising election after election and creating no interest among the average voter.

Harper can enter next week with a clean slate and controling the agenda. All he needs to do is keep on message, hammer the Liberals on the mismangement of the government (something he as stop doing as of late)and don't play into the media game. With Martin out of the country this weekend and the CPC platform to be released Harper will be able to control the agenda going into next week.

For Harper so far so good. End of week 2 election 2004.

[Black Dog]

Let me get this straight: Harper wants to buy at least two hybrid aircraft carriers?

How much are these tinker toys supposed to cost and, more importantly, what in dog's name do we need 'em for?

[Kliege]

Black Dog are you an idiot. The hybrid variety carrys veichles, troops and helicopters for quick land deployment. Instead of having to beg the U.S to carry Canadian troops on their ship to get to some peace mission. Thats why we need them.

Replacing the Sea Kings, buying the hybrid carriers, new light tanks, hiring more troops and procuring new heavy-lift aircraft would not make Canada a more militarily aggressive country, but would rather see the country participate in more peace keeping operations where we could be a much more effective partner instead of a drag and a burden to the United States and other NATO countries. Not mentioning the fact we could deploy a whole lot faster.

One thing about the NDP when it comes to the military they are completely CLUELESS.