Do facts matter anymore?

[geoffrey]

I'd like to take a read, where'd you find this? I did some extensive googling and couldn't find it.

Yes indeed I too would like to read this document, where can we find it Geoffery?????

Looks like it doesn't exist? Oh well, disappointing. I thought there was some real evidence Harper just might be conservative?

[Argus]

Let's forget the trash talk and check the facts.

There have been many allegations, insinuations, and investigations,

but no criminal charges or real evidence of a Liberal party "crime".

You are being silly. There is no doubt whatever of their crime. It is not even in dispute that they directed hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to their friends, and that some of that money was kicked back to the Liberal party. Their own party workers and the ad execs who testified have said as much. Some $40 million remains missing, and no one seems to know where it went.

Liberals are no more corrupt than any other political group.

Oh? How much money have the tories and NDP stolen lately?

They

have all had their share of scandals, and the current hype is far

too reminiscent of the 'Bush hawks' in their attacks on Bill Clinton.

The Americans were fooled by that and are now paying a severe price

(as is the world). Harper is merely 'Bush north'.

No one is accusing Martin of getting a blow job. Instead they're accusing him of screwing us.

Historical Fact: The Liberals have given us the Canadian social safety

net, mother's allowance, old age pensions, and instituted the universal

health plan proposed by Tommy Douglas. They have also given us the Canada

pension plan, Canada student loans, and the Canada assistance plan which

provides funding for provincial welfare.

They gave us these things? How generous of them. And here I thought we paid for them - well, all except the hundreds of billions that Trudeau borrowed in order to give the boomers cheap pensions and create our debt.

The world changed in the last fifty years. No matter who was in power, we would have had all that stuff, just like every other western nation.

Under Trudeau they gave us 'multiculturalism' to allow immigrants to

retain their culture, patriation of the Canadian constitution, and the

Canadian Charter of Rights.

Yes, multiculturalism so that immigrants could slaughter people in drive-by shootings on boxing day. Multiculturalism so immigrants could retain their culture and never adapt to ours, so they could live here all their lives and never become Canadians. Patriation of the Constitution and charter so we could spend tens, if not hundreds of billions in complex legal wrangling, so that unelected judges could supplant elected representatives as the supreme power and creators of laws and social policies. And you want me to reward them for that?

They have given us eight straight years of surplus, have further plans to

build a stronger and better Canada, and while retaining a friendship with

the American people, have kept us from being sucked into U.S. 'oil wars'.

It's thanks to Liberals that we have our own flag.

Anyone in power but the NDP would have given us surpluses given a booming economy - largely driven by exports to the US and the oil market, and the money pouring in from the GST, a program they promised to kill. As for a friendship with the US, I bet Bush won't even answer the phone when Martin calls. Martin has run as much against Bush this election as against Harper. His worst accusations are always that Harper is friendly with Bush, that Bush might "smile" if Harper is elected (God forbid) that Harper might do things like the Americans do (eeee!). And going to Iraq probably would have gotten us no more casualties than going to Afghanistan has.

The Conservatives destroyed our best chance to become world leaders in

aviation by scrapping the Avroe Arrow and then buying obsolete and

defective Bomarc missiles from the U.S., which caused many of our best

scientists and engineers to migrate southward.

Childish. There was no chance, none whatsoever, of us becoming world leaders because of the Avro. We simply don't have the numbers of consumers. Take a look, sometime, at the massive billions and billions and billions in support the Europeans have had to give to their own aircraft industries to try and compete with the Americans. And that's with huge local (enforced by government) demand from their own air forces and national airlines.

Under Mulroney they gave us the worst recession since WWII, unemployment

at the highest levels since the 1929 Depression, chronically high

deficits, and a new tax, the GST.

In point of fact, the world-wide recession started under Trudeau. Do we blame him then? And the GST is a program supported by the Liberals.

They also gave us the so-called 'Free Trade Act' over the objections of

the Liberals and the majority of Canadians, for which we are still

suffering.

They had an election over the Freed Trade Accord, and won. So much for being against the will of the people. With the protectionist trade winds blowing strong in Washington over the past years, it's been a good thing we had the FTA to protect us. It's certainly imperfect, but certainly better than nothing.

To not learn from history is possibly the most unforgiveable sin of all.

I would suggest you pick up a book or two and start at it then.

[hellnback]

Let's forget the trash talk and check the facts.

There have been many allegations, insinuations, and investigations,

but no criminal charges or real evidence of a Liberal party "crime".

If the Liberals ever release the names of the seven people that took the stolen money into their campaigns this will change. That's not to mention that there's still money left to account for.

And by safe harboring the 7 criminals from prosecution by not releasing their names, Paul Martin is as culpable as the rest.

Hicksey, you seem to assume that the candidates were in collusion with the actual perpetrators of the money 'misdirection'. On what basis?

I thought it was the job of law enforcement to do those things that you suggest Martin should have done.

That's not quite how things are done, my friend.

[hellnback]

The only facts that matter to someone that is partisan -- and your post is very partisan -- are facts that can be used to support his/her own view and/or reflect poorly on what he/she opposes. However, there are also the facts that these people like to ignore.

Historical Fact: The Liberals have given us the Canadian social safety net, mother's allowance, old age pensions, and instituted the universal health plan proposed by Tommy Douglas. They have also given us the Canada pension plan, Canada student loans, and the Canada assistance plan which provides funding for provincial welfare.

The Liberals have accomplished quite a bit, but they have also been in power most of the time. I'm not going to try to deny that the Liberals have done some good things because I'm not interested in partisan arguments. However, while they've done well in some areas, they've neglected others. For example: they've done well with the budget in recent years, but I just don't think they get it when it comes to defense, democratic reform and law enforcement. Rather than having tunnel vision on what's already going well, maybe it's time to focus on things that aren't going so well, and I'm not convinced you're going to see that with the same party remaining in power for so long.

Under Trudeau they gave us 'multiculturalism' to allow immigrants to retain their culture, patriation of the Canadian constitution, and the Canadian Charter of Rights.

I consider Trudeau to be one of the better Prime Ministers. However, it's interesting how the Liberals recently tried to imply in an attack ad that the Conservatives would use the military to impose martial law when the only Prime Minister to do that was Trudeau.

They have given us eight straight years of surplus, have further plans to build a stronger and better Canada, and while retaining a friendship with the American people, have kept us from being sucked into U.S. 'oil wars'. It's thanks to Liberals that we have our own flag.

Canada has had 8 years of surplus because the tax payers gave them money while services were cut.

They tell you they have plans for the future, but if you elect the same government, you're likely to get the same result. That would include paying down debt, which is good, but I don't think that's the only issue to consider. The question is: are you happy with the status quo? If so, vote Liberal.

I'd say that the friendship between Canada and the US exists more as a result of social and economic interaction than from political rhetoric. It's well known that some of the comments from the Liberals in recent years haven't exactly been helpful.

By definition of the word "ally" Canada should support the US when appropriate. The US doesn't always have it wrong; therefore, supporting the US in conflicts is not an absurd thing to consider.

Furthermore, it's estimated that 500,000 to 1,500,000 people died in Iraq under the sanctions that Canada helped enforce while the Liberals were in power. If you take the lowest figure, it's still higher than the number of deaths in the Iraq war. The conclusion in the Duelfer report echoed what people in UNSCOM were saying years ago, which was that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed in the 90s, yet sanctions continued, and thus the suffering continued. The US/British policy was that 100% verified disarmament was necessary to end sanctions, which was impossible to achieve.

I think Harper spoke prematurely on this subject for partisan reasons, but has long since changed his position. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that elected representatives listen to constituents, and Harper as demonstrated that he can do that. If he gets elected and it's just lip service, it'll be twice as hard for Conservatives to get re-elected. For the Conservatives, the critical thing will be to build trust not pushing contentious issues.

Also, don't forget that it was the Liberals that sent CF-18s on bombing missions in Kosovo in addition to the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan, and indirectly, Canada contributed more to the Iraq war that alot of the coalition.

Canada also contributed indirectly to the Vietnam war. Canadian made Napalm and Agent Orange ended up in Vietnam, and Agent Orange was tested in Canada even though the government denied it for years. It was the NDP, by the way, that helped uncover that. They also tested Agent Purple, which is far worse than Agent Orange.

The Conservatives destroyed our best chance to become world leaders in aviation by scrapping the Avroe Arrow and then buying obsolete and defective Bomarc missiles from the U.S., which caused many of our best scientists and engineers to migrate southward.

I agree that it was a mistake to scrap the arrow, but there's more to the story when it comes to the Bomarcs. Despite pressure from the US, Diefenbaker refused to arm the Bomarcs with nuclear warheads. At the time, Pearson's wife joined a group called Voice of Women that opposed nuclear weapons in Canada, and Pearson himself was against the idea. However, he later changed his position, and Trudeau lashed out at him for doing so. The following election was fought on the issue of nuclear weapons in Canada, and Pearson won. In 1963, Pearson met with JFK and agreed to nuclear weapons in Canada, which arrived at the end of that year. It seems alot of Canadians aren't even aware that there were nuclear weapons in Canada, but it was a reality thanks to the Liberals.

Native people also got the right to vote when Diefenbaker was Prime Minister.

Under Mulroney they gave us the worst recession since WWII, unemployment at the highest levels since the 1929 Depression, chronically high deficits, and a new tax, the GST.

Typical partisan argument. The Liberals blame Mulroney for it, and the Conservatives blame Trudeau. As for the GST, I thought the Liberals were gonna cut it? What happened to that?

They also gave us the so-called 'Free Trade Act' over the objections of the Liberals and the majority of Canadians, for which we are still suffering.

And the Liberals expanded on it with NAFTA. How do you expect to grow your economy with an isolationist attitude? Canada is next door to the largest economy in the world, which accepts the majority of Canadian exports, and Canada usually has a trade surplus with the US.

The best thing that Canadian voters have ever done was to send the party into oblivion. Unfortunately, it's now rearing it's head again.

That comment shows contempt for democracy. It is NEVER good for democracy to have a lack of opposition to the governing party regardless of which party your views are aligned with. Without opposition, what you have essentially is a coronation not an election.

The NDP is a coalition of socialism and unionism (CCF and CLC), which is great, ... if you happen to be in a union. They would, however, make an excellent opposition party for either Liberal or Conservative minority governments. Tommy Douglas (healthcare) was their brightest talent.

One of the key issues, I believe, in this election is democratic reform, and both the NDP and Conservatives agree on fixed election dates and possibly proportional representation.

The Green party is in it's infancy and is, sadly, limited in it's power to effect anything of substance. They are valid for future consideration.

Perhaps, but the only way for them to grow is if more people support them. Who knows, they my get people in the House of Commons this time. Also, unlike other media sources, CPAC has been covering them.

To not learn from history is possibly the most unforgiveable sin of all.

True, but cherry picking it for partisan reasons is pretty bad too.

In this particular election I am definitely "partisan" in view of the disastrous consequences if

conservatives were to get a majority government!

It seems that instead of refuting the facts presented you prefer to muddy the waters with things that were

done under contractual obligation, whether to NATO or the UN. That in itself betrays a partisan-like perception of circumstances. You also stress what other parties are promising, while I stressed only fact.

It would seem as though you have more partiality to "cherry-picking" than I.

Have a nice day.

[hellnback]

Let's forget the trash talk and check the facts.

There have been many allegations, insinuations, and investigations,

but no criminal charges or real evidence of a Liberal party "crime".

You are being silly. There is no doubt whatever of their crime. It is not even in dispute that they directed hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to their friends, and that some of that money was kicked back to the Liberal party. Their own party workers and the ad execs who testified have said as much. Some $40 million remains missing, and no one seems to know where it went.

Liberals are no more corrupt than any other political group.

Oh? How much money have the tories and NDP stolen lately?

They

have all had their share of scandals, and the current hype is far

too reminiscent of the 'Bush hawks' in their attacks on Bill Clinton.

The Americans were fooled by that and are now paying a severe price

(as is the world). Harper is merely 'Bush north'.

No one is accusing Martin of getting a blow job. Instead they're accusing him of screwing us.

Historical Fact: The Liberals have given us the Canadian social safety

net, mother's allowance, old age pensions, and instituted the universal

health plan proposed by Tommy Douglas. They have also given us the Canada

pension plan, Canada student loans, and the Canada assistance plan which

provides funding for provincial welfare.

They gave us these things? How generous of them. And here I thought we paid for them - well, all except the hundreds of billions that Trudeau borrowed in order to give the boomers cheap pensions and create our debt.

The world changed in the last fifty years. No matter who was in power, we would have had all that stuff, just like every other western nation.

Under Trudeau they gave us 'multiculturalism' to allow immigrants to

retain their culture, patriation of the Canadian constitution, and the

Canadian Charter of Rights.

Yes, multiculturalism so that immigrants could slaughter people in drive-by shootings on boxing day. Multiculturalism so immigrants could retain their culture and never adapt to ours, so they could live here all their lives and never become Canadians. Patriation of the Constitution and charter so we could spend tens, if not hundreds of billions in complex legal wrangling, so that unelected judges could supplant elected representatives as the supreme power and creators of laws and social policies. And you want me to reward them for that?

They have given us eight straight years of surplus, have further plans to

build a stronger and better Canada, and while retaining a friendship with

the American people, have kept us from being sucked into U.S. 'oil wars'.

It's thanks to Liberals that we have our own flag.

Anyone in power but the NDP would have given us surpluses given a booming economy - largely driven by exports to the US and the oil market, and the money pouring in from the GST, a program they promised to kill. As for a friendship with the US, I bet Bush won't even answer the phone when Martin calls. Martin has run as much against Bush this election as against Harper. His worst accusations are always that Harper is friendly with Bush, that Bush might "smile" if Harper is elected (God forbid) that Harper might do things like the Americans do (eeee!). And going to Iraq probably would have gotten us no more casualties than going to Afghanistan has.

The Conservatives destroyed our best chance to become world leaders in

aviation by scrapping the Avroe Arrow and then buying obsolete and

defective Bomarc missiles from the U.S., which caused many of our best

scientists and engineers to migrate southward.

Childish. There was no chance, none whatsoever, of us becoming world leaders because of the Avro. We simply don't have the numbers of consumers. Take a look, sometime, at the massive billions and billions and billions in support the Europeans have had to give to their own aircraft industries to try and compete with the Americans. And that's with huge local (enforced by government) demand from their own air forces and national airlines.

Under Mulroney they gave us the worst recession since WWII, unemployment

at the highest levels since the 1929 Depression, chronically high

deficits, and a new tax, the GST.

In point of fact, the world-wide recession started under Trudeau. Do we blame him then? And the GST is a program supported by the Liberals.

They also gave us the so-called 'Free Trade Act' over the objections of

the Liberals and the majority of Canadians, for which we are still

suffering.

They had an election over the Freed Trade Accord, and won. So much for being against the will of the people. With the protectionist trade winds blowing strong in Washington over the past years, it's been a good thing we had the FTA to protect us. It's certainly imperfect, but certainly better than nothing.

To not learn from history is possibly the most unforgiveable sin of all.

I would suggest you pick up a book or two and start at it then.

My dear Argus, your 'nic' is quite ironically descriptive since it copies the name of Project Argus which was an rocket shot in 1958 to detonate three atomic bombs for the purpose of seeing where the particles fell.

As for your post #27, it deserves no detailed response , being merely a collection of insults, generalizations and bigotry.

I don't know what university you attended but you obviously majored in incivility and vitriol and you must certainly have acquired a degree in ignoring reality.

Best wishes for your speedy recovery.

[geoffrey]

I don't know what university you attended but you obviously majored in incivility and vitriol and you must certainly have acquired a degree in ignoring reality.

Nope I got my degree in ignoring reality, Argus wasn't in my class, and I think they stopped offering it right after I was done.

[Boondoggle]

In this particular election I am definitely "partisan" in view of the disastrous consequences if

conservatives were to get a majority government!

It seems that instead of refuting the facts presented you prefer to muddy the waters with things that were

done under contractual obligation, whether to NATO or the UN. That in itself betrays a partisan-like perception of circumstances. You also stress what other parties are promising, while I stressed only fact.

It would seem as though you have more partiality to "cherry-picking" than I.

Have a nice day.

If you read my post again, you'll see that I start off by saying that people that are partisan tend to only use facts that either favor their position or reflect poorly on what they oppose. In other words, they offer an incomplete, and therefore inaccurate, picture. The purpose of my post was not to refute, but to add some of what you left out.

I'm not cherry picking or being partisan either. Naturally, I covered area that either made the Liberals look bad or the Conservatives look good to balance what you already covered. That's not being partisan. If I were partisan, I wouldn't have acknowledged that the Liberals have done good things, nor would I say Trudeau was one of the better Prime Ministers.

The only thing that I really mentioned that the other parties are promising is democratic reform, and given the length of my post and how much I dedicated to that, I don't think it's accurate to say I was stressing that point. However, it's worth mentioning that there is bipartisan support for democratic reform. What will the Liberals do for democratic reform? Remove the notwithstanding clause and have the courts dictate? No thanks.

If international obligations to NATO and the UN are important to you, then you should keep in mind that under international law it is for the Security Council to decide on matters of security not NATO. Kosovo was a NATO mission not a UN mission, and airstrikes are hardly classified as peace-keeping. The only two wars that the UN supported were Korea and Desert Storm. As for nuclear weapons, Canada signed on to the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) in 1968, yet had nuclear weapons in the country long after that. Of course, this could open a debate about effectiveness of the UN, but that's not the point when you mention our obligations.

If you prefer the Liberals, that's totally your prerogative, but it's simply untrue to suggest that one party has it all right and the other has it all wrong.

[scribblet]

Tories must stay on message

By: The Brandon Sun

Prepare yourselves, Conservatives. There are seven days left to go until Canadians pass judgment on the Liberal government, and in that time, you will have to fight like mad against a wounded beast that refuses to go quietly.

The Conservatives, ahead in the polls and poised to form government if nothing changes between now and next Monday, are already getting a taste of a Liberal government desperate to remain in power. Like a wounded sea monster thrashing around blindly, the Liberals will refuse to sink to the depths of the deep blue Conservative sea about to engulf the country.

At the end of the week, the Liberals did all they could to whip up fear among the electorate about what a Conservative government would do.

more here:

http://www.brandonsun.com/story.php?story_id=15900

[Hicksey]

Let's forget the trash talk and check the facts.

There have been many allegations, insinuations, and investigations,

but no criminal charges or real evidence of a Liberal party "crime".

If the Liberals ever release the names of the seven people that took the stolen money into their campaigns this will change. That's not to mention that there's still money left to account for.

And by safe harboring the 7 criminals from prosecution by not releasing their names, Paul Martin is as culpable as the rest.

Hicksey, you seem to assume that the candidates were in collusion with the actual perpetrators of the money 'misdirection'. On what basis?

I thought it was the job of law enforcement to do those things that you suggest Martin should have done.

That's not quite how things are done, my friend.

Regardless. As our Prime Minister, one is held to a higher standard than the average citizen. He must be above reproach. If our Prime Minister has information needed by a commission called, such as Gomery, as far as I am concerned it is no less than his duty to be forthcoming with that information. Unless it violates his right to self-incrimination, of course. After what damage his party has done to Canadians view of politics in Ottawa, an obstenant Paul Martin in the matter of corruption leads me to believe that reelecting them would simply keep the status quo. If Martin wants people to believe that he's genuine about changing the tide of corruption and profiteering in Ottawa, he's got to lead the charge, be FULLY accountable and no less than forthcoming about everything asked -- even if when the bottle stops spinning it points back at his own Liberals. To go half way in creating the Gomery Commission, and than stand there and refuse to go any further on 3rd and goal is a stupid political move in my opinion. There are a lot of people that think this way.

Having said all that, I believe the Liberal Party is in ruins. The other day my parents talked and I talked about that while they were conservatives, the Liberals were until the 1990's close enough to their views they were always a valid alternative if the conservative counterparts were that unworthy. They said the Liberals need to do what the conservatives have done since Mulroney if they want back in parliament anytime soon--regroup with new faces and some new ideas. And I agree. They need to purge all the faces and corrupted members behind the Liberal banner and emerge a new political machine. They're not all bad when their ideas can take center stage instead of their scandals.

[Argus]

My dear Argus, your 'nic' is quite ironically descriptive since it copies the name of Project Argus which was an rocket shot in 1958 to detonate three atomic bombs for the purpose of seeing where the particles fell.

I was rather thinking more of Greek Mythology.

As for your post #27, it deserves no detailed response , being merely a collection of insults, generalizations and bigotry.

Well, that's hardly fair. Your post was a collection of sputtering paranoid drivel and delusional nonsense and I at least took the time to show how childishly ignorant they all were. And did so with such handsome ease you are left with nothing to do but blush and slink off.

[BubberMiley]

You're not that handsome, Argus. And hellnback didn't sputter once. There was nothing paranoid in his post either, unless you consider his claim that Harper would have probably led us into the U.S. oil wars as paranoid. I think that's just facing reality.

And the only one who is delusional is you, with your ridiculous generalization that the shooting in T.O. was just a result of immigration. For starters, are you aboriginal? If not, you're an immigrant. Immigrants have always taken at least a generation to assimilate into Canadian society (unless they came straight from Britain). You haven't progressed at all from the people ranting about undesirable aliens 100 years ago. This country was built on immigration, and the vast majority of immigrants to this country come to love it, and are extremely productive, positive contributors to our society. To lump them in with gang shooters is not only disrespectful but, as hellnback fairly put it, bigoted.

[Argus]

And the only one who is delusional is you, with your ridiculous generalization that the shooting in T.O. was just a result of immigration. For starters, are you aboriginal? If not, you're an immigrant.

Oh my. The dullness, the ancient, hoary old cliche that anyone not a native is an immigrant (leaving aside, of course, the fact that even the natives came here from somewhere else). Tell me, is everyone in the UK an immigrant too, or just most of them? I mean, they're descendants of Nordic invaders, of Germanic tribes, of French invaders... Who gets to be the original, ge-nu-ine article over there?

Immigrants have always taken at least a generation to assimilate into Canadian society (unless they came straight from Britain).

You mean like the young Khadr boys, born in Canada? Assimliated real good, didn't they? Studies in European countries have shown that even into the third generation, the great majority of Muslims go HOME to get a bride or husband. Why do you suppose that is?

This country was built on immigration, and the vast majority of immigrants to this country come to love it, and are extremely productive, positive contributors to our society.

Were you playing a violen when you typed that? This country was built on hard work. Sure we've had a lot of immigration. And you know what? When the immigrants couldn't fit in, they went home. When they couldn't get a job, they went home. When they couldn't succeed, they went home. When the local culture went against the grain, they went home.

That doesn't happen now. Now they stay and go on welfare, and they demand we adapt to their culture, rather than the reserve. They're not going home because never in the history of Canada has the gulf in economic lifestyles been so vast between Canada and the countries from which our immigrants come. and btw, never has the difference in cultural values and basic beliefs been anywhere near as great between immigrants and those who grow up here. The immigrants who built this country were pretty much the same as those people they found here, but that certainly isn't the case with many of our immigrants today.

To lump them in with gang shooters is not only disrespectful but, as hellnback fairly put it, bigoted.

Even though virtually all violent street gangs are made up of immigrant and ethnic groups? Hell, even on the CBC on Sunday I heard them talking about the problem of Black crime in Toronto, and what's responsible for it (the answer, btw, seemed to be Jamaicans).

[hellnback]

My dear Argus, your 'nic' is quite ironically descriptive since it copies the name of Project Argus which was an rocket shot in 1958 to detonate three atomic bombs for the purpose of seeing where the particles fell.

I was rather thinking more of Greek Mythology.

As for your post #27, it deserves no detailed response , being merely a collection of insults, generalizations and bigotry.

Well, that's hardly fair. Your post was a collection of sputtering paranoid drivel and delusional nonsense and I at least took the time to show how childishly ignorant they all were. And did so with such handsome ease you are left with nothing to do but blush and slink off.

Before I blush and slink off though, I'd like to thank you. It's not very often that a wise, modest, and obviously self-assured man, such as yourself, would take the time and effort to answer the sputtering paranoid, delusional drivel of someone of my lowly stature and intellect.

Besides that, your comments have made me actually feel superior to someone.

[hellnback]

In this particular election I am definitely "partisan" in view of the disastrous consequences if

conservatives were to get a majority government!

It seems that instead of refuting the facts presented you prefer to muddy the waters with things that were

done under contractual obligation, whether to NATO or the UN. That in itself betrays a partisan-like perception of circumstances. You also stress what other parties are promising, while I stressed only fact.

It would seem as though you have more partiality to "cherry-picking" than I.

Have a nice day.

If you read my post again, you'll see that I start off by saying that people that are partisan tend to only use facts that either favor their position or reflect poorly on what they oppose. In other words, they offer an incomplete, and therefore inaccurate, picture. The purpose of my post was not to refute, but to add some of what you left out.

I'm not cherry picking or being partisan either. Naturally, I covered area that either made the Liberals look bad or the Conservatives look good to balance what you already covered. That's not being partisan. If I were partisan, I wouldn't have acknowledged that the Liberals have done good things, nor would I say Trudeau was one of the better Prime Ministers.

The only thing that I really mentioned that the other parties are promising is democratic reform, and given the length of my post and how much I dedicated to that, I don't think it's accurate to say I was stressing that point. However, it's worth mentioning that there is bipartisan support for democratic reform. What will the Liberals do for democratic reform? Remove the notwithstanding clause and have the courts dictate? No thanks.

If international obligations to NATO and the UN are important to you, then you should keep in mind that under international law it is for the Security Council to decide on matters of security not NATO. Kosovo was a NATO mission not a UN mission, and airstrikes are hardly classified as peace-keeping. The only two wars that the UN supported were Korea and Desert Storm. As for nuclear weapons, Canada signed on to the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) in 1968, yet had nuclear weapons in the country long after that. Of course, this could open a debate about effectiveness of the UN, but that's not the point when you mention our obligations.

If you prefer the Liberals, that's totally your prerogative, but it's simply untrue to suggest that one party has it all right and the other has it all wrong.

Boondoggle, I offer a sincere apology for a hasty misperception.

Please excuse the faux pas on the basis of me being new here and a bit overwhelmed by the initial response.

Much of what you have said is equal in truth to any of my contentions, however, the points that I covered

seemed (to me) to be the ones of utmost importance at this particular time of (what I consider to be) crisis.

Too many have apparantly forgotten the disastrous results of previous Conservative governments. Others,

who are young, have basically no knowledge of previous events. There are exceptions of course, but I feel

that a Consevative government is precisely what the "Bush hawks" want in Canada.

Perhaps you noticed my comment regarding my dislike for Martin, yet I see the Liberals as the lesser of evils presented at this time.

Again, please accept my apology.

I wish you well.

[BubberMiley]

Oh my. The dullness, the ancient, hoary old cliche that anyone not a native is an immigrant (leaving aside, of course, the fact that even the natives came here from somewhere else). Tell me, is everyone in the UK an immigrant too, or just most of them? I mean, they're descendants of Nordic invaders, of Germanic tribes, of French invaders... Who gets to be the original, ge-nu-ine article over there?

Cliches become cliches based on the fact they are true. And we agree. We're all immigrants from somewhere.

You mean like the young Khadr boys, born in Canada? Assimliated real good, didn't they? Studies in European countries have shown that even into the third generation, the great majority of Muslims go HOME to get a bride or husband. Why do you suppose that is?

Of the thousands of immigrants, you cherry-pick a few bad examples. Your arguments don't hold up when compared to the vast majority of immigrants who are positive, productive contributors to this country.

Were you playing a violen when you typed that?

Piano, actually.

This country was built on hard work.

by immigrants.

Sure we've had a lot of immigration. And you know what? When the immigrants couldn't fit in, they went home.

And you probably define "fitting in" as being just like you.

The immigrants who built this country were pretty much the same as those people they found here, but that certainly isn't the case with many of our immigrants today.

You have no sense of history whatsoever. In Winnipeg in 1919, there were riots about eastern europeans coming here. They were referred to as the "enemy alien."

Even though virtually all violent street gangs are made up of immigrant and ethnic groups?

Where I come from, they're almost exclusively aboriginal.

Hell, even on the CBC on Sunday I heard them talking about the problem of Black crime in Toronto, and what's responsible for it (the answer, btw, seemed to be Jamaicans).

Uh...rather than reject the otherwise successful foundation of our country, why not just deport them?

[Argus]

Much of what you have said is equal in truth to any of my contentions, however, the points that I covered

seemed (to me) to be the ones of utmost importance at this particular time of (what I consider to be) crisis.

That your corrupt, incompetent party might lose is not a crisis.

Too many have apparantly forgotten the disastrous results of previous Conservative governments.

The Mulroney tories were not really conservative. They were extremely centrist, with the red tory branch being mainly in charge then. The only conservative government was Harris' and he did pretty good given the circumstances. They've been blamed for everything but global warming by every shrill, wacked out lefty, but little they did can be seriously criticised by a neutral party.

Others, who are young, have basically no knowledge of previous events. There are exceptions of course, but I feel that a Consevative government is precisely what the "Bush hawks" want in Canada.

So what? You decide on your governments on the basis of what the Americans want? If a government is hated by the Americans it's good, if it's loved it's bad? Talk about ignorant and bigoted!

[Riverwind]

The only conservative government was Harris' and he did pretty good given the circumstances. They've been blamed for everything but global warning by every shrill, wacked out lefty, but little they did can be seriously criticised by a neutral party.

They cut taxes to quickly and created a huge deficit. That is plain incompetance.

[Argus]

The only conservative government was Harris' and he did pretty good given the circumstances. They've been blamed for everything but global warning by every shrill, wacked out lefty, but little they did can be seriously criticised by a neutral party.

They cut taxes to quickly and created a huge deficit. That is plain incompetance.

Much of the deficit was exagerated by the dishonest Liberals. Much of it was created due to unexpected incidents like the blackout and SARS. And let us not forget, the deficit could have been long gone given the huge tax increases of the Liberals. But they determined they could continue to blame it on the Tories for several years, even while greatly increasing spending.

[BubberMiley]

Conservative supporters are so naive. Conservative governments continually run up deficits, and yet they blindly follow, hoping that this time they won't get ripped off. In the states, the GOP can always be counted on to ring up whopping deficits. In Canada (with the exception of AB who have such a ridiculous amount of money from oil that they can't spend it all), conservative governments are quick to run up a deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy and blowing the bank on corporate welfare. Under the CPC, I'm sure Canada will soon lose its status as the only G-8 country with a surplus.

[tml12]

Conservative supporters are so naive. Conservative governments continually run up deficits, and yet they blindly follow, hoping that this time they won't get ripped off. In the states, the GOP can always be counted on to ring up whopping deficits. In Canada (with the exception of AB who have such a ridiculous amount of money from oil that they can't spend it all), conservative governments are quick to run up a deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy and blowing the bank on corporate welfare. Under the CPC, I'm sure Canada will soon lose its status as the only G-8 country with a surplus.

If that is what it takes to make Canada a stronger country and more respected abroad then it will be worth it.

LOL Bubber you're an NDP supporter...do you really think the NDP would govern with a balanced budget?

[BubberMiley]

They have for every budget for six years in Manitoba.

[tml12]

They have for every budget for six years in Manitoba.

The Manitoba NDP has a more set-out and centrist approach to governing, and the Doer government has not been as radical as past NDP governments.

[Guest eureka]

The thread title should be altered to "to whom do facts matter.? From the posts and the apparent public reaction to the Conservative platform, they obviously do not matter to the Right Wing or its supporters.

Never have I seen such blatant disregard for facts as is shown by the Conservatives: and never have I seen a support group so cheerfully unconcerned by the lack of truthfulness - or so willing to repeat the lies.

[Boru]

The thread title should be altered to "to whom do facts matter.? From the posts and the apparent public reaction to the Conservative platform, they obviously do not matter to the Right Wing or its supporters.

Never have I seen such blatant disregard for facts as is shown by the Conservatives: and never have I seen a support group so cheerfully unconcerned by the lack of truthfulness - or so willing to repeat the lies.

Disregarding the facts? I would prefer to say they are spinning the facts, and what's wrong with that?

Elections ahve never been pretty, and all parties have showna willingness to do whatever it takes to win seats.

Sure, the NDP can claim to a more honorable campaign... ( arugable maybe, but I think it's true)...but a party has the luxury to do that when they have absolutely no prospect of winning. Give the NDP 10% more of the national vote and watch the slime fly.

[hellnback]

Much of what you have said is equal in truth to any of my contentions, however, the points that I covered

seemed (to me) to be the ones of utmost importance at this particular time of (what I consider to be) crisis.

That your corrupt, incompetent party might lose is not a crisis.

Too many have apparantly forgotten the disastrous results of previous Conservative governments.

The Mulroney tories were not really conservative. They were extremely centrist, with the red tory branch being mainly in charge then. The only conservative government was Harris' and he did pretty good given the circumstances. They've been blamed for everything but global warming by every shrill, wacked out lefty, but little they did can be seriously criticised by a neutral party.

Others, who are young, have basically no knowledge of previous events. There are exceptions of course, but I feel that a Consevative government is precisely what the "Bush hawks" want in Canada.

So what? You decide on your governments on the basis of what the Americans want? If a government is hated by the Americans it's good, if it's loved it's bad? Talk about ignorant and bigoted!

Argus, I've never had the displeasure of hearing from a more uninformed, pretentious, spin artist than you appear to be.

It seems quite likely that you're not even Canadian, since your supposed knowledge of the political history of Canada is so bizarrely erroneous.

Please tell me when Harris was Prime Minister of Canada, .... I seem to have completely missed those years (he was merely Premier of Ontario). I imagine that YOU might assume that there is no difference but rest assured that there certainly is. While he was PREMIER OF ONTARIO he managed to destroy our provincial medicare system, raise taxes, cause needless strife in our educational system and cause voters to replace him with a Liberal, in this, a traditionally conservative voting province.

I can't help but notice that the first quote of your latest posting was taken from a response that I made to Boondoggle. Could it be that you're unethical enough to pretend that it was made to you? That could never happen, my friend, since from the first of your communications there has been nothing but biased gibberish contained in your postings.

For your edification, the "crisis" to which I referred was not that the Liberals might lose the election, but that if the Conservatives won we would soon see our young Canadians getting their limbs blown off in foreign oil wars while under the direction of a Bushite neo-Nazi.

In order to show the extent of the unmitigated comedy of misconceptions that you apparantly hold, be informed that my brother, sister, and all of their children are American citizens, my father is buried in Hollywood cemetary, and my mother's ashes are in Newport Bay.

Additionally, in addressing your absurdities, I "decide" my governments by weighing the respective records of all parties, factor in everything that is known about the currently running politicians, then apply the resulting conclusion to the current state of world affairs as well as domestic ones.

That analysis has shown the liberals to be the default choice of necessity.

You have me wondering if you're actually a neo-con 'plant' on this Canadian political site for purpose of deliberate spin and intellectual sabotage.

Rest in peace.