[bootlegga]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

BTW, Harper, as head of the Opposition also supported the Iraq invasion and even supported sending Canadian troops to fight with the coalition in 2003 (Chretien sent the troops to Kandahar instead), so neither one can really claim a moral high ground on that issue.

Chretein sent troops to Kandahar in 2002 and withdrew us in July of '02. He sent troops in 03-04 to Kabul to avoid having to commit one way or another to Iraq. Other than that, Harper did support the idea of sending troops to Iraq.

That's true, but my point was that it's widely believed that the real reason we went to Kandahar again (with a far different profile than we did in Kabul and with a full battle group) to was mend the broken fence for not going to Iraq.

Basically by announcing that Canada was expanding its role in Afghanistan and going to Kandahar on a war mission, it could state that it didn't have troops to participate in the Gulf War 2.

[Curtman]

Tman1 Tman1:

NATO doesn't work on 'do what we say or leave' basis. Move on, you're done.

$1:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

[GreenTiger]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

We've got our election here today and the question of Obama being replaced by Sarah Palin is a topic of conversation.

Which makes me wonder if it would happen again that Canada would go Liberal just in time for the US to go conservative? I don't why it is, but it seems we're political opposites anymore no matter which way either one goes. We really need to do a better job of coordinating our political pendulums.

That would be excellent situation if we could. It did happen(I think) Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan? Those two were quite close and I would like to see US and Canadian relations.

It was Mulroney and Bush Sr. We had a joke up here at the time. What's 9 inches long and hangs between Bush's legs? Brian Mulroney's tie

I stand correct on this one. Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan were personal friends and got along well; With Bush sr I'm not sure.

[herbie]

As much as I loathed Mulroney he at least pursued an independent stance on apartheid, at least the concept of moving taxation from income to consumption and gay rights. The sycophant Harper has no redeeming values whatsoever.
A Roundhead.

[EyeBrock]

herbie herbie:

As much as I loathed Mulroney he at least pursued an independent stance on apartheid, at least the concept of moving taxation from income to consumption and gay rights. The sycophant Harper has no redeeming values whatsoever.
A Roundhead.

Which just goes to show how bad his competition is. He's still there and the Libs are on leader #3 since he was elected. He's crap but not as crap as the rest of 'em!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

As far as apartheid and the concept gay rights go yes, they were areas that Canada could stand up and be proud. I'm gonna argue like stink about his "moving taxation from income to consumption" though. He didn't move it, he merely found a way to generate more consumer taxes while making it look like he was reforming income tax. I worked for RevCan the last year of the old taxation system and the first year after income tax reform. I had access to all the tax tables for both years. After diligent comparisons, under income tax reform I paid more than I did under the previous system.

[ASLplease]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

As far as apartheid and the concept gay rights go yes, they were areas that Canada could stand up and be proud. I'm gonna argue like stink about his "moving taxation from income to consumption" though. He didn't move it, he merely found a way to generate more consumer taxes while making it look like he was reforming income tax. I worked for RevCan the last year of the old taxation system and the first year after income tax reform. I had access to all the tax tables for both years. After diligent comparisons, under income tax reform I paid more than I did under the previous system.

why does the frazer institute say that our tax free day has imrpoved?