Jo... for your own sake, please don't believe everything that spews from the mighty (and state run) CBC. It will do your mental health a world of good! (lol)
Cons give Libs a month
- Thread starter Andem
- Start date
Why don't you google it then, you'll end up finding it on any ctv and affiliatated web sites too. Where would you have to read/hear it from in order to think about the issue? Obviously nowhere, turn off survivor, or desperate housewives and go see the world...it awaits.
AAAAAAAAND anyways the second link that talks about canadian troops in AY-Rak wasn't even a cbc article!!!did you just stop reading as soon as you saw the cbc link? Or was that all you saw?
Re: RE: Cons give Libs a month
I actually don't watch any of those shows and get out quite often, and thank you for considering my health. I don't understand why you seem to be angry about a factual statement about the CBC.... unless you have family that works there, which in that case I apologize if I offended you in some way.
And if you actually read other forms of media (newsprint, etc.) you will find very different opinions about Canada's role in Iraq. One thing you can believe though is that Paul Martin and many other gov't officials I am sure are certainly not benefiting by having an Iraq gov't that is not state sponsored. If you are unsure PM's involvement in the Food for Oil program you should go over to polspy.com for some fascinating and eye opening information about the real reason why they didn't want Hussien overthrown. And it certainly has nothing to do with it being an "unjust war". That's just the spin they gave you and you obviously bought it.
Jo Canadian said:
I actually don't watch any of those shows and get out quite often, and thank you for considering my health. I don't understand why you seem to be angry about a factual statement about the CBC.... unless you have family that works there, which in that case I apologize if I offended you in some way.
And if you actually read other forms of media (newsprint, etc.) you will find very different opinions about Canada's role in Iraq. One thing you can believe though is that Paul Martin and many other gov't officials I am sure are certainly not benefiting by having an Iraq gov't that is not state sponsored. If you are unsure PM's involvement in the Food for Oil program you should go over to polspy.com for some fascinating and eye opening information about the real reason why they didn't want Hussien overthrown. And it certainly has nothing to do with it being an "unjust war". That's just the spin they gave you and you obviously bought it.
There are a slew of reasons why the war was opposed, and your reasons were most likley on the same list. Good and Bad reasons are on every side. In this case the Good outweighed the bad. (as far as scandals go)
Now that you're done with your little temper tantrum, the real answer is 300 soldiers in Iraq. It doesn't matter how we got there, we were there. End of story, thanks for coming out, don't call us we'll call you, adios, over and out, Cya.
As far as the legitimacy of the war. The jury is still out. However, they have recovered 300,000 bodies in shallow graves in and around Baghdad and they are still finding more grave sights almost on a daily basis. It's too bad the US overthrew him before he could hit the "million man" mark. That would surely assured him a spot in the dictator hall of fame.
Damn Americans!!!
No, I'm making a valid point. Canada did not send troops to Iraq.
Actually we were talking about BMD, which is the first step to putting weapons in space according to the US government.
No. It's reliant on NORAD. It is not part of NORAD. Your hero Bush has said as much. So have Stevie and Paul.
I say that if you act like whipped puppy, you get treated like a whipped puppy.
The Conservatives would whore out their mothers. Where do you think Stevie gets his campaign money from? My post isn't based on speculation though, it's based on years of observation.
Our farmers are suffering because of the US. Not just the closed border or the constant assaults on the CWB either. Our farmers are suffering because of a US subsidy regime that is so twisted and ugly that it makes American family farmers want to puke too.
Because Alberta does not represent the will of the majority of the Canadian people.
No, it was defeated because it was written by unthinking idiots. The Liberals allowed convicts to vote, not just pedophiles and murderers. They are citizens, after all.
Do you have any idea how many news outlets covered the story? Do you any understanding that the CBC is recognized all over the world for the quality of its journalism?
Because it isn't factual. It's patently and demonstrably false.
I'm pretty sure that I read more print media, from all sides of the political spectrum and from all over the world, every day than you do in a month.
Most indications are that Paul Martin likely would have gone into Iraq. It was Chretien that said no. The proof the US was offering didn't stand up to scrutiny and the Canadian people did not support the war.
Actually it matters very much how we got there. If you any political sophistication or even a cursory knowledge of international relations and diplomacy, you would know that.
No actually, it isn't. It is illegal to attack a sovereign state unless they present a clear and immediate danger to you. Iraq posed no such threat. The was illegal. Bush is war criminal. And a liar.
Then those 300 soldiers wearing Canadian fatigues in Iraq were ghosts.
Oh it's the first step. Now your a prophet.
Proof?
Good relations makes good sense. Period. No need to post ridiculous analogies.
You're a liar and your spreading hate. Canada knows where the Liberals get their money now.
That may be your opinion. Common sense dictates that if your badmouthing someone, they aren't exactly going to go out of their way to help you out.
Right. And Quebec does. LOL :lol: :lol: :lol:
No. They gave up that right to be citizens when they took someones life or dignity. Now you're really reaching.
Great rebuttal. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Which kind of "fats" would you like me to try. Saturated?
Your posts make me gag. Does that count?
By the way. You're quite the celebrity in my office. I've been letting people read some of your posts. I'll refrain from posting their comments though.
This is a family forum after all.
:wink:RE: Cons give Libs a mont
Just to get things back on track....
The Liberals moved to relegate the remaining opposition days to June, meaning none of the opposition parties could introduce a motion of non-confidence and force an election before the summer. All three opposition parties were rightfully angry about losing their opposition days.
The Conservatives were especially angry though because they were left in a position where they would have to vote against the budget implementation bill if they wanted to force an election. They had already said that they would support the bill, so that would make them look like liars. More to the point, it would hurt them at the polls because a lot of Canadians don't want an election yet and the Conservatives would be the only ones forcing the election. The NDP and BQ said long ago that they would not support the budget.
The Conservatives used a point of order to get an opposition day back on May 19. They are expected to introduce a vote of non-confidence in the government that day, which will bring down the government and give us an election on June 27.
Other than that, Paul Martin has invited the press to his office tomorrow night. He wants to talk to the country. We don't really know what he's going to talk about, but we do know that he won't be pre-empting the defeat of his government by calling an election. The opposition parties are angry about that because Martin is not speaking in the House of Commons. As a result they are demanding equal time on the TV networks.
The opposition have a point...this is basically an election speech and they should have a chance at rebuttal. Martin has a point too though, the first in a very long while. The House of Commons has reached the point, mostly because of the screeching of the monkeys on the Conservative benches, where speeches made in the House cannot be heard.
Any rebuttals by the opposition parties would also be lost in the screeching of Liberal monkeys, so it would be far better if they all gave their speeches on TV so we can hear what they say. Maybe, just maybe, they'll even listen to each other and get down to the business of trying to run the country instead of hooting like deranged children.
Just to get things back on track....
The Liberals moved to relegate the remaining opposition days to June, meaning none of the opposition parties could introduce a motion of non-confidence and force an election before the summer. All three opposition parties were rightfully angry about losing their opposition days.
The Conservatives were especially angry though because they were left in a position where they would have to vote against the budget implementation bill if they wanted to force an election. They had already said that they would support the bill, so that would make them look like liars. More to the point, it would hurt them at the polls because a lot of Canadians don't want an election yet and the Conservatives would be the only ones forcing the election. The NDP and BQ said long ago that they would not support the budget.
The Conservatives used a point of order to get an opposition day back on May 19. They are expected to introduce a vote of non-confidence in the government that day, which will bring down the government and give us an election on June 27.
Other than that, Paul Martin has invited the press to his office tomorrow night. He wants to talk to the country. We don't really know what he's going to talk about, but we do know that he won't be pre-empting the defeat of his government by calling an election. The opposition parties are angry about that because Martin is not speaking in the House of Commons. As a result they are demanding equal time on the TV networks.
The opposition have a point...this is basically an election speech and they should have a chance at rebuttal. Martin has a point too though, the first in a very long while. The House of Commons has reached the point, mostly because of the screeching of the monkeys on the Conservative benches, where speeches made in the House cannot be heard.
Any rebuttals by the opposition parties would also be lost in the screeching of Liberal monkeys, so it would be far better if they all gave their speeches on TV so we can hear what they say. Maybe, just maybe, they'll even listen to each other and get down to the business of trying to run the country instead of hooting like deranged children.
Regarding screeching in the House, all one needs to say is Anne McLellan (sp?) from Edmonton. I agree we will have an election in June. As far as shifting power to Alberta, seeing as a lot of the financial power is there, why not the political power? Or is Alberta supposed to just hand over money without any say at all where it is spent or how it is spent? Hell, even Ontario is finally upset over the transfer payment formulas. About time, the Ontario premier is simply saying now what a lot of Albertans have been saying for a number of years. As far as the US bashing goes, I do not understand why some of you are so determined to make our largest trading partner and closest friend and ally upset with us. I don't agree with everything they do and say, but since 9/11, and the response from people like Cretin, is it hard to blame them for their attitudes towards us? BTW, if the war was about oil, why is the price so high and the reserves supposedly so low? Mayber\ the Bush critics lied and put out incorrect spin? Nah, they wouldn' stoop that low would they? Oops, forgot about the troubling Adscam thing for a minute. Guess they might stoop that low, after all. By stooping that low, they can look all the other snakes in the eyes.LOL
She does screech, doesn't she? Pants too. I wasn't talking about any individual member though...I mean the childish and disgusting habit the Conservatives and Liberals have of trying to shout down whoever is speaking. Let the questions be asked and the answers be given.
We live in democracy. Alberta has fewer people than other areas of the country.
Are you volunteering to give back all the money that's been poured into your province over the years then? Before LeDuc you guys were in really rough shape. The oil sands still wouldn't exist without federal money and depend on subsidies and tax breaks. Would you like to pay that all back in today's dollars with interest?
Perhaps you'd like to pay a special premium for products from the rest of Canada? Maybe Alberta farmers shouldn't get federal help for BSE and crop failures?
We are one nation, not two or three or ten.
So work out a fair and equitable change of the system. Don't demand special treatment or complain because you feel you aren't being treated properly. Don't make empty threats about taking your bat and ball and leaving.
The NDP have offered to work with Ontario and Premier McGuinty is happy with that. The NDP have expressed an interest in doing the same with any province willing to work with them. All we hear from Alberta is how hard done by you are, yet you are the richest province in the country. Your politicians, including Stevie Harper, have a really bad habit of denigrating the rest of the country and offering nothing in the way of constructive alternatives. We're tired of hearing it.
If they are going to be upset with us for looking after our own interests and acting like a sovereign state, that's their problem. Most of Canada (and the rest of the world) does not agree with the policies of the Bush regime. The problems were apparent almost immediately after Bush took office. Chretien and Clinton had a good relationship and there were few problems between our two countries. That points to the problems being instigated by the Bush White House, not our leaders.
This is way off topic, but if you want to start a new thread or revive one of the old ones (there are plenty) I'll be happy to discuss it.
Rght on the mark, Rev. Your knowledge of politics far exceeds mine (I'm a retired engineer and not much of a student of politics, but not the conservative you'd expect a retired engineer to be either) and I have yet to see a post of yours on political issues that I disagree with.
The price of oil is what it is because OPEC no longer controls it, it's in the hands of Wall Street speculators, as was recently discussed in the Globe&Mail. I was working in Alberta in 1973, when Syncrude (my employer at the time) was trying to get its oil sands project going, and the political chicanery that went on around that was staggering. You wanna talk tax breaks, demands for special treatment, intimidation, gamesmanship... Well, it was exactly what you'd expect would be going on between powerful business interests and a right wing government.
Keep up the good fight Rev. It's about what's good for people, not business, not government, not vested interests, but little guys like you and me.
The price of oil is what it is because OPEC no longer controls it, it's in the hands of Wall Street speculators, as was recently discussed in the Globe&Mail. I was working in Alberta in 1973, when Syncrude (my employer at the time) was trying to get its oil sands project going, and the political chicanery that went on around that was staggering. You wanna talk tax breaks, demands for special treatment, intimidation, gamesmanship... Well, it was exactly what you'd expect would be going on between powerful business interests and a right wing government.
Keep up the good fight Rev. It's about what's good for people, not business, not government, not vested interests, but little guys like you and me.