tml12

Harper was no Mulrooney Conservative.

I sure don't want Canadian Conservatives to get sucked into the ideology of American and Australian fanatical-Conservatives. Guys like Murdoch can't be aloowed to get a monopoly on the media. I'm guessing that was the major drive behind excluding "cultural resources" from WTO juridiction. I'm sure guys like Murdoch would love to own every last printing press, book store and TV station and web-server in the world. They even feel threatened by countries like Sweden. Maybe it's just anger at not being able to fully penetrate their markets. While my area of speciality is North American Politics and I can't really comment on Austrailian politics, I will say I don't think that I would generalize so much about US politics. Neither Bush's father, nor John McCain, nor Colin Powell, nor about 60% of the Republican Party is "fanatical" right-wing. They are centre-right. This administration is just a bit fanatical.

WOW...if only more Quebecers would drop the Bloc...

Probably...I don't support it at all. But the Liberals have already appeased Quebec so much already...we'll see where it leads.

Mulrony and Bush after all are Honest guys. The fact that they tripled their national debts wasn't stealing.... Was it? Does that money have to be paid back? Not by Bush or Mulroney it doesn't River, Mulrooney destroyed the Conservatives...you won't find many people in general who would tell he was flawless...

True and why are people blaming every Conservative Party platform on Mulrooney? I am not a fan of Mulrooney...I will not justify his actions. What I will do is say there have been many other Conservative politicians in this country...like Diefenbaker, etc. Mulrooney and Chretien were corrupt and I am no fan of either of them. That is in the past...

"Stephen Harper quote: Human rights commissions are an attack on our freedoms. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." If he was talking about the UN Commission which dithers and doesn't attack many Arab policies against human rights then I can't say I blame him...

Agreed...agreed...agreed...well put Shoop!!!

Aside from the relatively hilarious way canada.com chose to publish this article , I think that the female vote may decide this election. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...79f03db&k=59426 A lot more women I know seem to be voting Conservative this time...

Good post fellowtraveller...

You are right Shady. The Defense shield is a nice idea. So is the idea of using lithium-crystals to power cars (The Starship Enterprise, after all, has been running on lithium for decades) You should look at what the chances are of making the Defense Shield / Star Wars project work before you start building silos and committing billions of dollars of tax money to the project. The fact is, many top physicists, engineers and weapons experts have said that it isn't worth the cost considering the very low chance of success. Moreover, it is absolutely clear that pursuing the shield will trigger another arms race--greatly increasing the chances that terrorists will get their hands on a nuke. It's hard to convince Iran not to build nukes when you are spending $billions upgrading your own arsenals. Like El Baradei said "you don't have much credibility telling someone to quit smoking while you are chain-smoking yourself" Of course, the defense shield has best been described as "the Biggest Corporate Welfare Scheme in the History of the World." Free enterprise at it's worst. The only sensible thing to do with the shield is to put it on the back burner until there is a reasonable chance that it can be made to work. There are far greater security risks than rogue-missiles to deal with. Read my first post on this thread for more info, and/or do a web search to learn for yourself. It's ridiculous that conservatives are still backing this plan. It's more likely that they want to get on the corporate welfare gravy train. River, Again I respect your decision. Actually, we agree 100% that missile defence is stupid, dumb, costly, and silly. Why do I support it? Simple. It is about having a seat at the table. If the U.S. is defending Canada and we don't know about it or how they are doing it, I have a lot of issues with that. Martin's position that the U.S. will have to let Ottawa know is ridiculous. We backed out...we don't have to know anything. The Liberals maintain only they can defend our sovereignty. But they can't even keep this country together. Martin promised strong leadership and was a consistent finance minister. I even almost voted Liberal in 2004 because I thought Martin could restore the dignity the Liberals had before years of Chretien loathing, arrogance, and scandals. Yet after this Liberal government fell and I had time to analyze it over the holidays I realized what went on was shameful. Canada is no longer seen as a proud nation around the world. It is no longer seen period. People don't know what to make of us or who we are. Is this something to be proud of? Martin probably would have made a great PM. Instead, he was too self-assured...confident that he could take multiple positions, dither, and receive the support of everyone. Instead, his nature of extreme confidence proved him the ultimate ditherer. Once he got to the top, there was no more. Nothing greater he could strive for. Sadly for them, the Liberals must face the punishment of bringing Canada to this level. I am voting Conservative because I believe that Harper can do a better job...

Are you f-ing serious...If so, I'm writing my MP...oh wait, that's Alexa Mcdonough so I might as well just write a letter to myself. I'd write a letter to my Liberal MP but I hear she lives in Brossard (off Montreal...I wonder if that is true). Anyway, I know she lives somewhere out of my riding and got lost on the way here... My Conservative candidate meanwhile lives a few blocks from here and is VERY active in the riding...sadly with all these Liberal voters who blindly vote for them year after year that isn't enough... :angry:

I'll give you that...

Obviously Layton would much rather have a LIberal minority than a Tory minority, and it has nothing to do with ideology. Martin has proven over and over again that he will do pretty much anything to stay in power, I doubt Harper will be so malleable. True but, you know, Martin sacrificed his fiscal conservative dogmatism for an NDP budget (which I think helped A LOT...but I also am a fan of fiscal conservatism and corporate tax cuts...the curse of being a centrist ) The public will not want another election soon. I think the Conservatives will work with all three parties, even the Liberals. Keep in mind, Martin is more conservative than a lot of past Liberal PMs. It's not like a Harper minority would have to work with a socialist Liberal like Trudeau. I think Martin, who will get dumped if he loses anyway, will have nothing to lose while the Liberals go to IGA searching for a new leader. I think a CPC minority could survive about 2 years...although I would not like to have a minority government around when the PQ likely will come to power again (the next election scheduled for around 2007 here in Quebec).

Oh do lighten up! Anyway, as you said....8 callers do not represent the feeling of the majority. So there is nothing to worry about. Btw guys, on CTV. Question Period last night, the lady announcer laughingly quipped to the guy-announcer: "The Liberals are mad at us! They say we are being hard on Martin!" The guy amusedly answered: "Well no, Martin is being hard on himself with all these scandals!" And did you get that piece of news clip on tv aired yesterday morning? Layton was campaigning I think in Vancouver and he approached this sweet little old lady on a wheel chair. He bent down to greet her and she wagged a finger in his face, admonishing him: "Now you stop attacking Harper! He will be leading the government....so you stop attacking him." I never heard that...that's funny!!! And I bet Layton was like "uh, yeah...we could work with them... "

Why doesn't Harper speek for himself tml. Are you on Harper's payroll to speak for him? “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… (Stephen Harper Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994) Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. The next logical step is to begin building a much more autonomous Alberta. ( Stephen Harper National Post, December 8, 2000) Harper's rhetoric only intensified between 1994 and 2000. Why would anybody believe that he is more reasonable today? Do you know that a start up job at MacDonalds in Northern Alberta pays $17/hr. No wonder Harper thinks he is so hard done by. I lived in Edmonton for 14 years and never had any problems with the rest of Canda. Now I'm living in BC and I'm still happy. Any push for breaking up Canada is misinformed at best and, more realistically, driven solely by very selfish interests like Harper's Per my above post...I do not know all the answers to your questions River but I do know that I am willing to give Harper a chance. He may not be perfect...and I do not agree completely with his platform...but I think that re-electing the Liberals would only hurt Canada. I most certainly am not disrespecting your decision to support whatever party you see fit to support. If you think that re-electing the Liberals is the best thing for Canada, then I will support your decision and respect that you are participating in the political process. Not enough people do it... :angry: I think we need relations with the U.S. to be better. I don't support W on a lot of issues and I am weary of neo-cons. Yet, the U.S. is our biggest trading partner and our best ally. Whether a Canadian is left, right, middle, or whatever, they can say they have friends in the U.S. regardless of which party is in power in either country. I don't believe in bashing your friend for political points...and I have no respect for the people who do it...namely the left in Canada and the right in the States. I want a strong North America. I want a strong Canada. I want good relations with the U.S. I don't think any of these things are impossible...but I think for now, they are best achieved under a Conservative government.

And yet you folks continue to bash Martin based on many statements he made prior to being PM. Interesting. State one instance where I bashed Martin on a statement he made before becoming PM... I'm not going to go on an in-depth search for who said what, but you can't deny that comments were made on this board re PM comments on same sex marriage, PM supporting troops in Iraq, his support of Charlottetown Accord, and many others, all before he became Prime Minister. In fact I'm sure your "search" team worked overtime to find conflicting statements Martin made before he was PM. All I'm saying here is that everybody says things to suit the situation at the time. Harper is no different. OK Newbie, I am guilty to doing some of those things. My point is: I don't think it is fair to condemn Harper based on things he said while the head of various right-wing factions. I think we should judge Harper based on the platform he has put before us now. Today, I see a leader who is willing to stand up for federalism and Canada by allowing more of a "flexible" degree of federalism. Historically, I have championed a strong central government. I still believe this is best for the nation. However, with federalism in the bitter disarray it currently is in, I believe there needs to be a new and revised federal-provincial relations. We need a new leader who will work with each of the provinces and whose party will work with the provinces to eliminate corruption. I don't support all of Harper's platform. I am not extremely supportive of unregulated free market enterprise and am unsure how far Harper is willing to go to solve separatist issues in the country. However, I am willing to give him a chance because I believe it is what is best for the country. The Liberals have governed for a very long time and have a lot of rhetoric. They ramble on and on but have not accomplished much. I want to see a fresh Canada. I want a new start for our country, a new direction. For these reasons, I will vote Conservative and hope for the best.

And yet you folks continue to bash Martin based on many statements he made prior to being PM. Interesting. State one instance where I bashed Martin on a statement he made before becoming PM...

Well you know what Chretien's probably saying... "I will have a legacy of hatred and corruption...my nemesis Martin will have no legacy at all."

Ah, right. But River God, this is the court of politics not a court of law. Grow up and live with it. Are you admitting that the Conservative campaign depends on smearing Martin? Are you admitting that the Conservative campaign can't stand on its own two feet? I think what he was saying his such is life in politics. Harper is defending himself from the Liberal propaganda attack machine. The Conservative campaign is doing, considering they have not been behind in any poll this. Its the Liberals who can't stand up on two feel now.

1) The neo-cons were also way too beligerant toward Iraq. Just look at all the "intelligence" they fabricated to create fear and panic in Americans. 2) Harper has the chance to explain what he meant. He could also explain why his ideas have changed in the last few years. With all the widespread doubts surrounding him, why doesn't Harper do this...........? My best guess is that we should fear the worst from Harper. The neo-cons are the neo-cons...I have my own issues with them... As for Harper, He made those comments out of a complete lack of frustration with the political spectrum and how Canadian politics are corrupt. Given the record of Liberal and PC hatred for the west, I understand his frustration. I don't like how he put the comments, and quite frankly I think he should have been more careful with his wording, but he is correct that the Liberals have abused Canadian federalism.

While I don't agree with posting the same message in several threads, I don't see that there would be any harm in including the Greens as part of the debate. I mean let's look at the situation just a few years ago. The PDC's had been reduced to two (???) seats, and were still included as part of the leaders' debate in the next election, even though they had lost party status. The Greens have a credible platform, at least as credible as some others, and, as it has been argued here, if the BLOC is included in a so-called "Leaders' Debate", when they have no desire to either form a government, or, for that matter, even to advance Canada is any way (hard to do when you're trying to split up the country), then I see no reason that the Greens should be excluded. I think you'll see people supporting the Greens being at the debates if they win a seat in the election. After all, the PC party was the number one party for years before that.

CANADA I would like to see live, exhaustive debates before all elections. Party leaders should be required to directly answer all questions. It's ridiculous that, instead of exhaustive debates, billions of dollars are wasted on mindless lawn signs during elections. Harper Harper should detail what he means by this statement "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be" Is that just a call to allow vigilate governments to control each oil field and gold mine in the country? How is that good for the general population? Iraq I would like to hear clear, verifiable, statements by the Bush Administration about what their long term goals are in Iraq and How Iraq's oil will be managed. I would have also like to see the American's have live, exhaustive debates with Hussein before they invaded Iraq. Iran I would like to read the full text of the Iranian President's speeches somewhere in the media (you can't even find it on al-Jazeera's english website) instead of just endless repetitions of "Wiping Israel off the Map". Overall: Okay, I have no major issues but some general objections, namely: 1) No one could debate with Saddam because his stubborness and foolishness precipitated U.S. aggression. 2) Harper made those comments on national government a long time ago. Now he wants to be PM of this great nation and with federalism in the rotten state that it is in, I think we should give him that chance.

I hope so!!!

Uh....The Green Party? How do you support Canada's sovereignty when you're willing to sell it out to the first international pet project that comes around? Tell me again how spending billions of dollars on Kyoto credits helps improve the environment, our economy or our quality of life? Added to those billions being spent on credits we must spend further on improving our situation. Perhaps if we followed the United States' lead and put the money on improving greenhouse gas emissions in the first place, instead of spending it on ridiculous conferences and "credits"...we might actually improve our environment instead of paying lip service to international boogey men. The United States is actually doing something about greenhouse gas emissions, meanwhile back at the ranch we're criticizing them when we haven't even begun to make a fraction of the improvement they have. Cybercoma, I said of "the big THREE." Naturally, the Greens are the best. Please don't try and confuse the leftiest. Naturally, Canada is a "kinder, gentler" nation that signed Kyoto, whereas the U.S. didn't, so we are "much better" than those Americans who lack a "global conscience." The left would be funny if it wasn't so hateful and hypocritical.