Peter Aitken wrote:

> Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for decades. With
> this election they may be on the way to changing that.
>
> And, as anyone who pays attention knows, the main reason the conservatives
> won is the disgust over the terrible corruption that has happened under the
> liberals.

While we did a little bend to the right, it is only enough for a minority
government, not enough for Harper to do anything stupid like joining Bush in
his unjustified invasion of Iraq. It really hurt to put an X next to the name
of the Conservative candidate but I was ****ed off by years of Liberals at the
trough. We paid millions for an inquiry to find out who was responsible for
$100 being paid to pro Liberal advertising company. It cleared Martin, but
those responsible never went to jail. No one was even charged. The last straw
for me was the proposal of a hand gun ban. The only problem with hand guns in
this country is a bunch of west Indian gangs in Toronto running around shooting
each other. They got rid of the previous police chief because he wasn't
suitably culturally sensitive and replaced him with a PC lackie.

Martin lost my the little bit of faith I had in him when he said that legally
registered handguns in this country were just a break-in away from being used
by criminals. I had to shake my head over that extensive coverage of the fire
arms instructor who has been charged with unsafe storage of his handguns. He
had them in a case so strong that it took the thieves two days to break into
it. Sounds pretty safe to me. The PC crowd wonders how a guy can get a permit
to keep restricted firearms in a neighbourhood that is dangerously rife with
gangs. I wonder how a neighbourhood can be so unsafe and not be subject to
increased police activity.

> We paid millions for an inquiry to find out who was responsible for
> $100 being paid to pro Liberal advertising company. It cleared Martin, but
> those responsible never went to jail. No one was even charged.

The actual amount diverted has yet to be established. The overall
money involved was 250$ million but a substantial amount of that
appears to have been spent properly and on legitimate projects. So,
what Harper succeeded in doing was to force an election before
Canadians realized that the amount that was actually being discussed
was much less than they could imagine and that they could possibly
start forgiving the liberals (of Chrétien, not Martin as none of the
money was dispensed under his administration) for doing exactly what
they wanted them to do in the first place.

What Canadians are upset about is not that Québec was encouraged to
stay in Canada, but that it wasn't out of love...they had to pay for
it. And it's not like the Parti québécois benefitted financially by
it either. It's like trying to date a woman and then realizing that
her husband expects payment for that.

Well, boo hoo. Personally I fail to see what the complaint is. Those
who wanted this got what they wanted. The part that were kickbacks, I
agree that those should be prosecuted, but not all sponsorship
transfers were criminal. I've been dealing with these files for over
two years now. Quite a bit of it was as innocuous as any other
sponsorship.

What must also be noted is that the entire program was created under
Joe Clark. So perhaps the Conservatives have some share of
responsibility for it, except that Clark has dissociated himself from
Harper, thank the gods.

Dave Smith > wrote:

> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
> > Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for decades.
> With

Excuse me, please explain how any country that allows fags to marry is
superior to America?

p.s. Smitty, I always have to re-wrap my posts with you, why?








> > this election they may be on the way to changing that.
> >
> > And, as anyone who pays attention knows, the main reason the
> > conservatives won is the disgust over the terrible corruption that has
> > happened under the liberals.
>
> While we did a little bend to the right, it is only enough for a minority
> government, not enough for Harper to do anything stupid like joining Bush
> in his unjustified invasion of Iraq. It really hurt to put an X next to
> the name of the Conservative candidate but I was ****ed off by years of
> Liberals at the trough. We paid millions for an inquiry to find out who
> was responsible for $100 being paid to pro Liberal advertising company. It
> cleared Martin, but those responsible never went to jail. No one was even
> charged. The last straw for me was the proposal of a hand gun ban. The
> only problem with hand guns in this country is a bunch of west Indian
> gangs in Toronto running around shooting each other. They got rid of the
> previous police chief because he wasn't suitably culturally sensitive and
> replaced him with a PC lackie.
>
> Martin lost my the little bit of faith I had in him when he said that
> legally registered handguns in this country were just a break-in away from
> being used by criminals. I had to shake my head over that extensive
> coverage of the fire arms instructor who has been charged with unsafe
> storage of his handguns. He had them in a case so strong that it took the
> thieves two days to break into it. Sounds pretty safe to me. The PC crowd
> wonders how a guy can get a permit to keep restricted firearms in a
> neighbourhood that is dangerously rife with gangs. I wonder how a
> neighbourhood can be so unsafe and not be subject to increased police
> activity.

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> Peter Aitken wrote:
>>
>> > Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for decades.
>> With
>
> Excuse me, please explain how any country that allows fags to marry is
> superior to America?

It doesn't matter. It has absolutely no effect on your daily existence.

Yes it does, it's a joke. You just don't throw 10,000 years of tradition
out the window because 2 or 3 people out of a hundred have a brain
defect and are WAY over represented in the media.


Doug Kanter > wrote:

> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Dave Smith > wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Aitken wrote:
> >>
> >> > Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for decades.
> >> With
> >
> > Excuse me, please explain how any country that allows fags to marry is
> > superior to America?
>
> It doesn't matter. It has absolutely no effect on your daily existence.

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Kanter > wrote:
>
>> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > Dave Smith > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for
>> >> > decades.
>> >> With
>> >
>> > Excuse me, please explain how any country that allows fags to marry is
>> > superior to America?
>>
>> It doesn't matter. It has absolutely no effect on your daily existence.

> Yes it does, it's a joke. You just don't throw 10,000 years of tradition
> out the window because 2 or 3 people out of a hundred have a brain
> defect and are WAY over represented in the media.
>
>


Let's go back to bottom posting, which matches the way most civilizations
read and write. OK? Now - onward:

"Tradition" is not a material thing - it's a way of thinking. In what SOLID
way does *** marriage affect your daily life? Do you make less money because
of it? Is it harder to find parking space? Do married gays grab all your
favorite produce at the grocery store before you arrive?

You mentioned "brain defects". That's also a matter of perception. George
Bush's energy policies are made in meetings whose attendees are a closely
guarded secret. I think anyone who doesn't question this has a brain defect,
but you probably see it differently. I think that if a cashier gives you 5
plastic bags for 7 lightweight grocery items, he/she has a "brain defect".
How do we solve this "brain defect" problem?

Doug Kanter wrote:

> Let's go back to bottom posting, which matches the way most civilizations
> read and write. OK? Now - onward:
>
> "Tradition" is not a material thing - it's a way of thinking. In what SOLID
> way does *** marriage affect your daily life? Do you make less money because
> of it? Is it harder to find parking space? Do married gays grab all your
> favorite produce at the grocery store before you arrive?

I get a kick out of people like Wolf and his neocon buddies. They whine and moan
and tradition and Christian morals but half the self righteous dinks are
divorced or are out having extramarital affairs. So much for their Christian
values. Let's not forget some of those evangelists who got caught getting hand
jobs from hookers or drugging and raping their staff.

The neocons should be grateful to the more liberal minded who allow ***
marriages. The secret blot it to breed homosexuality out of the population.
There is pretty good evidence that homosexuality is an inherited trait, and
people tend to pass on their genetic traits through reproduction. Gays have
been socialized into sham marriages which lead to normal heterosexual practices
and reproduction, passing on their *** genes to their children.

When you stop hassling homosexuals, stop coercing them to pretend they are
straight, stop coercing them into unions with the opposite sex, they stop
breeding more of their kind. They are free to enter same sex unions and most of
them do not have children. In a short time there will be few, if any, people
born with inherited homosexuality. It's a shame that they never learned to let
their enemy take care of itself.






>
>
> You mentioned "brain defects". That's also a matter of perception. George
> Bush's energy policies are made in meetings whose attendees are a closely
> guarded secret. I think anyone who doesn't question this has a brain defect,
> but you probably see it differently. I think that if a cashier gives you 5
> plastic bags for 7 lightweight grocery items, he/she has a "brain defect".
> How do we solve this "brain defect" problem?

Dave Smith > wrote:

> Doug Kanter wrote:
>
> > Let's go back to bottom posting, which matches the way most
> > civilizations read and write. OK? Now - onward:
> >
> > "Tradition" is not a material thing - it's a way of thinking. In what
> > SOLID way does *** marriage affect your daily life? Do you make less
> > money because of it? Is it harder to find parking space? Do married gays
> > grab all your favorite produce at the grocery store before you arrive?
>
> I get a kick out of people like Wolf and his neocon buddies. They whine
> and moan and tradition and Christian morals but half the self righteous
> dinks are divorced or are out having extramarital affairs.


My my you are one tolerant lib.......answer me this is homo activity
natural or unatural?

And why do I have to keep rewraping your posts.......



So much for their Christian > values. Let's not forget some of those
evangelists who got caught getting hand > jobs from hookers or drugging
and raping their staff. > > The neocons should be grateful to the more
liberal minded who allow *** > marriages. The secret blot it to breed
homosexuality out of the population. > There is pretty good evidence
that homosexuality is an inherited trait, and > people tend to pass on
their genetic traits through reproduction. Gays have > been socialized
into sham marriages which lead to normal heterosexual practices > and
reproduction, passing on their *** genes to their children. > > When you
stop hassling homosexuals, stop coercing them to pretend they are >
straight, stop coercing them into unions with the opposite sex, they
stop > breeding more of their kind. They are free to enter same sex
unions and most of > them do not have children. In a short time there
will be few, if any, people > born with inherited homosexuality. It's a
shame that they never learned to let > their enemy take care of itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You mentioned "brain defects". That's also a matter
of perception. George > > Bush's energy policies are made in meetings
whose attendees are a closely > > guarded secret. I think anyone who
doesn't question this has a brain defect, > > but you probably see it
differently. I think that if a cashier gives you 5 > > plastic bags for
7 lightweight grocery items, he/she has a "brain defect". > > How do we
solve this "brain defect" problem?

Doug Kanter > wrote:

> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Doug Kanter > wrote:
> >
> >> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > Dave Smith > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Peter Aitken wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Canada has been morally and ethically superior to America for
> >> >> > decades.
> >> >> With
> >> >
> >> > Excuse me, please explain how any country that allows fags to marry is
> >> > superior to America?
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter. It has absolutely no effect on your daily existence.
>
> > Yes it does, it's a joke. You just don't throw 10,000 years of tradition
> > out the window because 2 or 3 people out of a hundred have a brain
> > defect and are WAY over represented in the media.
> >
> >
>
>
> Let's go back to bottom posting, which matches the way most civilizations
> read and write. OK? Now - onward:
>
> "Tradition" is not a material thing - it's a way of thinking.

I would argue "Tradition" is the fabric that's held society together all
these years.


In what SOLID
> way does *** marriage affect your daily life?

Well, since "We" have not reached that low point "Yet" I don't really
have an answer for you. Other than it would make it hard to keep food
down so I may starve to death......


Do you make less money because
> of it? Is it harder to find parking space? Do married gays grab all your
> favorite produce at the grocery store before you arrive?
>
> You mentioned "brain defects". That's also a matter of perception. George
> Bush's energy policies are made in meetings whose attendees are a closely
> guarded secret.


No Bush Bashing, ok.........


I think anyone who doesn't question this has a brain defect,
> but you probably see it differently. I think that if a cashier gives you 5
> plastic bags for 7 lightweight grocery items, he/she has a "brain defect".
> How do we solve this "brain defect" problem?

Use paper?

"Doug Kanter" > wrote in
:

>> Excuse me, please explain how any country that allows fags to
>> marry is superior to America?
>
> It doesn't matter. It has absolutely no effect on your daily
> existence.

Yeah, that's a toughie. Removing discriminatory language, now that's a
reprehensive and morally inferior thing to do.

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara

Dave Smith a écrit :

> While we did a little bend to the right, it is only enough for a minority
> government, not enough for Harper to do anything stupid like joining Bush in
> his unjustified invasion of Iraq.

The numbers are out. This from the CBC:

"More than half the people who voted Conservative in Monday's election
did so mainly because they thought it was time for a change, according
to an Environics poll conducted for the CBC the weekend before the
vote.

"Only 41 per cent of them said they were voting for Stephen Harper's
party because they wanted a Conservative government, compared to 54 per
cent who said they were casting their ballots for the sake of change.

"The remaining five per cent didn't know why they were voting
Conservative or did not answer the question."

Now, in my view, voting for the Conservatives is NOT voting for change
in any significant sense of the word as it is a continuation of one of
the two original political parties going back to 1867, although it
certainly has no ideological relation to its parent anymore being more
of a classical liberal party. Voting NDP would be real change, or
voting Communist would be even more change. But it's obvious that it's
not "real" change that's wanted, just the usual "more of the same"
change. In other words, let's not do anything rash like actually put
our money where our mouth is (as a nation).

On the plus side, 54% of voters who voted for Harper will likely return
to their old voting habits next time and reelect the natural ruling
party. Whether it's a majority or another minority will depend on who
they choose to replace Martin. Here's my early prediction, assuming
they stand for the leadership, Belinda Stronach (majority), Michael
Ignatieff (minority).

alsandor wrote:

> On the plus side, 54% of voters who voted for Harper will likely return
> to their old voting habits next time and reelect the natural ruling
> party. Whether it's a majority or another minority will depend on who
> they choose to replace Martin. Here's my early prediction, assuming
> they stand for the leadership, Belinda Stronach (majority), Michael
> Ignatieff (minority).

Ignatieff, the guy who has been living and working in the US for the last 20 years?
I am sure he is in tune with federal issues on a practical level. His being
parachuted in to a riding is a prime example of what is wrong with the party. It is
top down organization. Local party members are expected to vote for people who
will give their support to certain people at the top rather than determine the
stand on issues and send someone to represent them.

It is interesting to hear the US perspective on it. The Liberals were accused of
being anti American, but other than that outspoken idiot who got booted out of
caucus for her comments, there has been no anti Americanism. There has only been
resistance to American pressure on some issues. There is the ongoing dispute on the
illegal US tariff on Canadian lumber and our refusal to get sucked into the
invasion of Iraq, and most Americans are starting to realize they were mislead and
outright lied to on that issue.

Dave Smith a écrit :

> Ignatieff, the guy who has been living and working in the US for the last20 years?
> I am sure he is in tune with federal issues on a practical level. His being
> parachuted in to a riding is a prime example of what is wrong with the party. It is
> top down organization. Local party members are expected to vote for people who
> will give their support to certain people at the top rather than determine the
> stand on issues and send someone to represent them.

Your point being? He's elected, he's a citizen and he can run for
leader if he wants.

> It is interesting to hear the US perspective on it. The Liberals were accused of
> being anti American, but other than that outspoken idiot

Carolyn Parrish? She was anti-Bush, not anti-American. I think more
than a few can make that distinction.

> who got booted out of
> caucus for her comments, there has been no anti Americanism. There has only been
> resistance to American pressure on some issues.

Some, like Der Wolf, see that as anti-americanism. Telling them not to
stick their hands into a hornet's nest is anti-Americanism, not
building up our military is anti-Americanism (building up our military
is probably going to be viewed as anti-Americanism as well), not paying
attention to them is anti-Americanism, having our own political issues
is anti-Americanism...

> There is the ongoing dispute on the
> illegal US tariff on Canadian lumber and our refusal to get sucked into the
> invasion of Iraq, and most Americans are starting to realize they were mislead and
> outright lied to on that issue.

However, do you think they're going to be in favour of paying back the
5$ billion they owe us? No, they'll call us anti-American for thinking
they owe us anything. :-)

Carolyn Parrish...where are you when we need you?

alsandor wrote:

> Dave Smith a écrit :
>
> > Ignatieff, the guy who has been living and working in the US for the last 20 years?
> > I am sure he is in tune with federal issues on a practical level. Hisbeing
> > parachuted in to a riding is a prime example of what is wrong with the party. It is
> > top down organization. Local party members are expected to vote for people who
> > will give their support to certain people at the top rather than determine the
> > stand on issues and send someone to represent them.
>
> Your point being? He's elected, he's a citizen and he can run for
> leader if he wants.

The president of his riding association dropped a bombshell 3 days beforethe election,
suggesting people not vote for the Liberals because of the way he was parachuted in. I
don't know exactly how damaging it was for the party, but they did lose the election.

I heard Sheila Copps whining on the news last night about Martin and his dirty tricks,
but Sheila was part of Chretien's crew, and they were the bunch who were responsible for
the scandal for which Martin was left holding the bag. I was glad to seeher get shafted
out of the running.

> > There is the ongoing dispute on the
> > illegal US tariff on Canadian lumber and our refusal to get sucked into the
> > invasion of Iraq, and most Americans are starting to realize they were mislead and
> > outright lied to on that issue.
>
> However, do you think they're going to be in favour of paying back the
> 5$ billion they owe us? No, they'll call us anti-American for thinking
> they owe us anything. :-)

Exactly.

Dave Smith a écrit :

> alsandor wrote:
>
> > Your point being? He's elected, he's a citizen and he can run for
> > leader if he wants.
>
> The president of his riding association dropped a bombshell 3 days beforethe election,
> suggesting people not vote for the Liberals because of the way he was parachuted in. I
> don't know exactly how damaging it was for the party, but they did lose the election.

But your point is pointless (as it were) as Ignatieff was elected with
a sound majority. He obviously is not tied to Chrétien and the
bagmen. The resignation of the president of the riding association was
equally pointless :-)

> I heard Sheila Copps whining on the news last night about Martin and his dirty tricks,
> but Sheila was part of Chretien's crew, and they were the bunch who were responsible
> for the scandal for which Martin was left holding the bag. I was glad tosee her get
> shafted out of the running.

It's my understanding that Sheila was not a candidate in the election
(or were you talking about the leadership?) and has in fact been making
good money as a political commentator. She's popular in Québec with
federalists as she is fluently bilingual which many of her fellow
anglos in politics are not.