Phosphor

McKay also sold the party (the Progressive Conservatives) out to the Alliance (for those not familiar with Canadian politics, the Conservative Party is a new party, formed from the merger of the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform Party) and the PC's). He promised Orchard that he wouldn't in exchange for Orchard pulling out of the leadership race and supporting McKay. Fine lad or not, he strikes me as an utterly dishonest backstabber and made a public display of how untrustworthy he is. And I think it's indicative of the Conservative party's general (lack of) honesty. Edit: I didn't know you were Canadian, Sarg. Learn something new every day I suppose.

The NDP are not about high taxes, their tax strategy is to more evenly distribute the tax burden, so the high income earners pay more than the low income earners. A graded tax scale, basically, and I think it's a good idea. They are the most environmentally-conscious party (moreso than the Green Party, even), and definately support social programs. They're the working-class party, unlike the Liberals or Conservatives who cater to the upper classes. As far as taxation for health care goes, we in Ontario are about to be paying extra for it anyways, and more unfairly than the NDP would allow for. The NDP of course are not going to win (we'll never have an NDP PM), but they might gain ground this election. Or be utterly destroyed. One or the other. Chretien was not far left, he was just eccentric and didn't bow to American pressure. Chretien is the man behind the current sponsorship debacle that's been hounding Paul Martin since he took office. As far as the Conservative platform being "centrist" in the USA, I'm not sure. The Conservatives would limit or remove gay rights and abortion, would hinder arts funding and artistic freedoms and boost military spending, bring in for-profit health care (essentially decimating the health care system for the average or low-income Canadian), give tax cuts to the wealthy, and hinder environmental protections (they say they support agriculture, but they don't; as evidenced by their desire to remove the Kyoto protocols, amongst other things), and bow to US pressures. Stephen Harper has been "mentored" by Brian Mulroney in this campaign, and Mulroney is probably the most hated PM in recent Canadian history. The Conservatives present a nicely-dressed platform, but they really demand a good between-the-lines reading, and when that's done, they're pretty scary. There are often Conservative MPs whom require damage control from Harper, as they say something they really shouldn't (like homosexuality should be outlawed, and that bilingualism will not be supported under a Conservative government), and Harper has to say that's not party policy. But it is policy, just not the policy they're running for election on. Harper says anyone who doesn't tow party line will be removed, yet the people responsible for the example comments still have their jobs. The only thing I agree on with the Conservative platform is military spending. While I'm not a supporter of war, the Canadian military is a joke, and if we want to be taken seriously, and have a role in global peacekeeping, we need a better military. Looking at the PM contenders, I think Martin has the greatest capacity to run the country. He's a lousy politician, and really needs better speech writers or handlers. He strikes me as a person who knows what needs to be done but isn't very good at communicating it to the people, and he's a lousy debater. He seems popular with the leaders of other countries, too. He was well-recieved at the G8 summit, so I think he's capable of doing well for Canada on the world stage. I think that if Kerry wins in the US, we'd have a new, positive time of Canada-US relations, with Kerry and Martin as leaders.

I want to vote NDP. They have a good platform and good ideas, and I think Layton is doing a great job of pushing the party. They might actually be able to make a comeback. However. I loathe Stephen Harper and the Conservatives with a passion; I hate them more than I like the NDP, which leads me towards the inclination to vote Liberal, if only to keep the Conservatives out. It's not so much voting for, as voting against this time. But then, I wonder that if I vote Liberal, and they lose to the Conservatives anyway, it's a wasted vote that would have been much better served going to the NDP and helping to give them a bit more leverage. So I'm torn, really. I don't like the Liberals very much; they are corrupt, but the Conservatives are wallowing in a hidden agenda much larger than their election platform, and the dread shadow of Brian Mulroney looms over them like some hideous demon. Paul Martin is a terrible politician, and he is not doing wonders for the party, but I think he'd be ok as PM. He hasn't really had much of a chance to do anything yet, being plagued by the sponsorship scandal for the majority of his run so far. I kind of think he's giving a good show of faith by calling the election when he did; it's rather honest of him to not linger unelected in office for a long time. He's in a bad spot, and all he's been doing is dealing with fallout from the Chretien years, and thats a lot of fallout. I'd like to give Martin a chance. But whether I'm simply trying to justify voting Liberal, or whether I really feel that way, I'm not sure. The only thing I'm certain of is that if the Conservatives win, the country is going into the crapper (unless you're right wing and rich, in which case it'll be paradise).

It is a bit odd, particularly in regards to Russia's motivations. They gave this alleged intelligence (the US hasn't responded to Putin's statements, at least not that I've seen yet), but also were against the war with Iraq. It's almost as though Russia wanted someone to war with Iraq, but they didn't want to get involved militarily.

Is he actually involved in the project? IMDB didn't specify. If he is involved, that's good. He's extremely stubborn and headstrong, so hopefully he could keep things faithful.

Yeah, just like that.

Quoth Wheelman: "I loved the book too...anyway, it's being directed by Frank Darabont, three time Oscar nominee, no word on the actors, it's in production which means it's subject to change or could be removed completely, and that's what I know at this point...but hopefully it's better than the '66 version because the technology we have at our disposal at this point in time, not saying of course to take the special effects over the storyline... " I really worry about sci-fi book adaptations these days, as nothing recent has been any good. They're all action and effects and little of the original stories remaining.

I agree that Sharon is a big part of the problem. He seems to revel in the violence and I haven't seen anything but lip service from him in regards to pursuing peace. The bulldozing of Palestinian homes and tank rampages was nauseating, and it came right after the US essentially "approved" of Isreal to do what needed to be done. Sharon definately has some sort of guardian spirit though (named George Bush perhaps ), having avoided assassination and conspiracy charges recently.

I had heard rumour that a new movie was being made of the book. I hope it's good, I love the book. Do you know who's involved with the film? Director, screenwriter, actors etc?

Saying "I am given with pleasure and taken by force" might have worked better. Still, good riddle!

Minds (as in opinions/thoughts; eg "I'm of two minds on this.")?

I agree with Gorth. The current "war on terror" is lost, killing and imprisoning terrorists is not going to change a thing, new terrorists will take the place of the fallen and take up the task with even more vigour and determination. The US-led efforts to eradicate terrorism will only make it worse, which is indeed happening. Violence begets violence. The US fight on terror will become the next Israel vs Palestine, a long, bloody war in which each side continues retaliation and both sides just make it worse and worse. Like Hades said, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It will only be when nations, organisations, religions etc. no longer feel threatened from a superior power that terrorism will diminish (it'll never cease, let's be realistic about that).

Silence?

Genocide tends to get people a bit riled up though. Maybe someone ought to declare war on both Israel and Palestine, forcing them to work together for survival. Perhaps then they could learn to co-operate.

The whole Israel/Palestine issue is such a bloodied, violent mess, and you can't show support for one or the other without coming off as a complete bastard. The way I see it, both sides are "so far in blood that sin will pluck on sin"; they've both commited atrocious acts against the other and it only causes retaliation ad nauseum.

What about from the Black Leather Lagoon?

Indeed, it's the context in which the quotes are used that will be the crux of the work's integrity. Like any of Moore's work, having a basic understanding of the situation he's criticising is important.

I haven't seen Fahrenheit 911 yet, but I'm sceptical of claims that it distorts the truth and facts. From what I've read about it and see in clips and trailers, it's an assemblage of interview pieces and comments directly from the people Moore is targeting. It's not as though he can change what they said. It's not like Bowling For Columbine which is comprised more of opinion. But, I'll reserve further comment until I see the film.

What if Julius Caesar had not gone to the Senate on March 15th? The assassination of Caesar paved the way for the monarchy to rule in place of the republic, and brought in some very notable and colourful historical figures. The Roman empire underwent the greatest expansion and development under it's emperors. Would Rome have ultimately developed similarly as a republic? Would Julius not being assinated merely set back the move to a monarchy?

I think that is an excellent bit of advice, and as an American, perhaps you should follow it as well. As a foreigner to the rest of the world, keep your commentary on world politics to yourself, and refuse yourself a say.

I like Kerry, too. From what I've read of him and his speeches throughout the campaign, he seems like an intelligent, thoughtful and "leaderly" individual. Of course he's not perfect - no-one that seeks to be president can be all that trustworthy (if you want that kind of power, you really shouldn't have it), but overall he seems decent. Leagues better than Bush, at any rate. Wish I could vote for him.

Heh, we're about to get our very own George W. Bush in the form of Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party, whom are poised to emerge victorious in the upcoming federal election. I wouldn't get your plane ticket just yet. Maybe if Bush loses to Kerry and Harper wins, I'll move to the US! I hope to all that is sacred that Bush does not get re-elected. Personal opinions of him aside (for good or for ill), he has not exactly made America internationally loved. He's created more division and animosity in the world, and certainly has shattered US credibility on an international level. I'd think that Americans, should they wish to be taken seriously on the global stage, have a responsibility to vote Bush out, if only to gain respect again. The US wants to be a world leader, fine. But understand that there's a responsibility to the world there, not just to America.

Very much so.

Just like real life