Thirty Liberals Break Ranks, Support Bloc Motion On Missile Defence Shield

very interesting if you read the Globe and Mail, you\'ll get a different rant on this, see www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews ... 25/COBMD25
I hope I typed that correctly, but anyway I wrote a letter to the editor objecting to this writers generalities...he claims that Canadians are in favor of BMD 7 out of 10 and that \'Canadians understand that we must use the proposed U.S. sytem\'...

I am a Canadian and I am against it, I also do not understand \'we must do anything U.S.\' never mind arming ourselves to the teeth to play fearmonger in the world.

The most important issue here for me is that we don\'t have the facts, how can we really be for or against the idea without the facts! I say I am against, because I think we can do more to remedy the threat by irradicating poverty and oppression the world over, in other words treat the root of the evil, not the symptom; the other aspect is the liberal gov does not have a mandate to enter into these talks on our behalf...so why are they doing it?

Hello Whelan,

I totally understand the frustration. Especially the frustration of these articles that get published where the author is clearly very biased.

Something I would like to see as law, is articles having arguments from both sides of the issue. Kind of like an argument between two people on both sides of the issue. This way the reader can make up his mind from there. This idea of biased articles where the author tries to persuade people to believe in what he/she is saying is just wrong. This goes for articles that we agree with here. There should be no problem having arguments from both sides.

Kevin Gagnon

I agree Kevin, but I also object to \'stats\'or polls being used as if they were facts, they do it with politics, policy and every other area which is misleading the public, and a great disservice to the public. Right now we don\'t have any idea, of cost, or impact this decision could have on this country and yet whenever Mr.Pratt has been asked, he is evasive, well we haven\'t said yes or no about putting missiles on Canadian soil, but he says, we have signed a letter of intent! What the heck is a letter of intent...intent to do what?? These are questions Canadians ought to be informed about, generations will be paying for this decision and not just financially.

Hmmmm.


Oh yeah, and I read the Globe article earlier.

It\'s bunk.

whelan,

I understand totally. It would be like me doing an article saying that the polls are showing NDP as 56% support amongst Canadians. This is what my poll shows on my site. But the details to this poll would be that only 48 people voted. Also my site has been on NDP discussion list. So obviously the results will show as they are. If I gave the poll to a 1000 conservatives, obviously that poll would be much different. Usually these right wing authors will never reveal the details of their polls.

How many people voted. Who voted, did they give the poll to a group of conservatives/right wingers? What group seen the poll, and how many people voted is important to know.

The next time you see an article in the globe where the author uses poll results like that, challenge him with quesions. The answers you get will reveal the reason behind the odd results.

Kevin Gagnon

I didn\'t sign in - it\'s 4Canada,

Yes, if the pollster asked do you want missiles landing on your home? yes. no. It\'s very certain they\'d get a large no response. Hence bad \"fact\" gatherer.

I just wanted to draw attention to a little bit of misleading stats they throw at us. I\'m referring to the polling that goes something like this: \"In a poll of 1000 Canadians conducted by _________, 18% of DECIDED voters support the NDP.\"

Now, they don\'t really mention how many of those 1000 are DECIDED voters. And that means that, while it appears to be a genuine statistic, the margin of error could be larger than the stats themselves.

There\'s a whole list of technical wording that can completely change the meaning in statistics. I just thought that one was easy to skim over and miss so I brought it up.

-KY

A system that will protect Canadians from nuclear terror paid for by the Americans is another huge bonus for Canada. All Liberal MP\'s are of course more interested in handing out our money to their friends, but these thirty figure they can steal some left-wing votes by playing the Anti-American card, unfortunately that works on some narrow-minded Canadians. The Left has always been in awe of American prowess, the admiration is not totally misplaced, however there are others investing in space technology who could potentially hold the U.S. hostage to their demands. As much as the left in Canada would enjoy this scenario, ultimately it would be a very bad thing. A North Korean nuclear missile falling short of its Seattle target could vaporize Vancouver, or Vancouver could be the target in the first place because the Dear Leader of N.K. may gamble that the U.S. may not respond on behalf of a fickle Canadian gov\'t. Canada refuses to provide security for its citizens now, vapourized citizens don\'t vote, so there would be no response from the gov\'t, Canadians could take the moral high ground and wait for the next batch to be vapourized.

I disagree. I do believe that some of these Liberals are in complete disagreement to the missle defence plan of the U.S (weaponize space). I think that Paul Martin is for it and some of his other liberal supporters like Pratt are also for it. They will in my opinion go along with the U.S on this one. It will split the liberal party up.

Currently many liberals still believe that they are supporting the liberal party of the past, but in reality their supporting another version of a Mulroney conservative party. In time these liberals will realize this and probably leave the party.

Kevin Gagnon

Any more mushrooms, mo?

And I don\'t think the left is represnetede at all, and it certainly isn\'t in awe of the Americans, it is in awe of its own ego and policies.

Maybe your right.