Concerned

Would you consider this comment democratic ? Democracy demands freedom of speech. But in America if you speakout against American policy, you better watch it !! If America is democratic, and we are its democratic neighbours, we should be free to discuss, argue, agree with or disagree with their policies, just as they are free to discuss ours, without threat. ...."Canadians should understand that storm clouds are gathering to the south. Humiliating American kids in a hockey rink is simply not acceptable. Thumbing your nose at 127 dead Americans in Iraq by making defiant statements about where Saddam should be extradited is not a wise policy... One more cheap shot, one more unnecessary taunt, one more insult directed at the USA by you or your minions, and I'll give you a very accurate long-range forecast. It's gonna get mighty cold mighty fast west of the St. Lawrence." - Fox News host Bill O'Reilly threatens Canada because of the nation's stance against the Iraq War, April 19, 2003.

Well, maybe not right away. Seems to me they want our water, our electricity, our lumber, our airspace and oil. 60 Minutes presented the latter's significance to the USA. Did you know that Western Oil Sands owns 20% of the Athabasca Oil Sands Project, and that the EXO and VP represent American firms Chevon/Texaco, and BHP. Yaro is correct when he implies that the American administration (particularly the Republican ones) is motivated to action when it can be of benefit to itself. "We could have taken them (Canada) over so easily... (But) all I want is the western portion, the ski areas, the cowboys, and the right-wingers." - Conservative pundit Ann Coulter on the November 30 2004 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes "They [Canada] better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." - Conservative pundit Ann Coulter on the November 30 2004 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes

tml12 : It appears that your knowledge of the history of who started what war is derived from the American Media, or perhaps from your American friends who are largely influenced by it. In the words of my communications professor: "there is no free lunch", the American Media reports biasedly in favour of consumerism: never bite the hand that feeds you baby. Not to mention "fear sells". The US government, and in particularly the Bush Administration play on this and gets away with (mass) murder because of it. You need to go back a little further to understand who was really responsible for starting things. Try reading Naom Chomski for more in depth history that the American Media did not address. I too have American friends, and when they come to Canada they watch our news reports about American policy in awe and disbelief. Nothing against the American population, its the regime and the system that we criticize.

Absolutely the immigration system needs to be held accountable; if someone has come here and committed a violent crime, we have no obligation to allow them to stay; nor do we have an obligation to take in someone who poses a credible risk. The justice system also has to bear some responsibility, as often the criminals you are talking about are not immigrants at all, but people born here in Canada, whether to immigrants or not. All the other factors that may be contributing to crime (poverty, inequality of opportunity, bored affluence, adolescent peer cohesion, real or perceived sense of injustice, etc.) don't excuse the crime. What bothers me is the talk about the "ethnic communities" not condemning the criminal actions enough - to do this would be to imply that these crimes are somehow connected to their ethnicity. Criminals are criminals, regardless of the colour of their skin, and should be tried, convicted, locked up, deported, whatever, based on their actions, not their skin colour. Good Answer.........Mar, I'd be interested to hear your take on this.

Great post, thanks for the first-hand education. I'm with Crazymf though, questioning whether Canada is really a target of this group? What potential do you see here ? Big Blue: I saw that comment in the G&M. That link is utterly ridiculous and bears no statistical logic whatsoever.

Thanks, this answers my question. The fact that it was 10 at night explains why he couldn't just go see his family doctor. I still think its important for him to be open and forthright with the media since he took a hardline against scandal in his campaign. He has to prove to the Canadian public that he can be trusted more so than his predecessors. There is no defense to that, he's the one that used those tactics so he's the one that has to be answerable, from day one. Where is the potential scandal in going to get treatment at a public hospital when you are sick? I really must be missing something here. I know, its seems most of your posts show you have no real insight to what is going on, as long as its socially RIGHT. The point is that Harper has to be honest and forthright and be very open to show he is not going down the same path as many others have before him. Do you remember a scandal-less government in your lifetime ??? Perhaps mine is too short.

....Secondly, the UI program as a social engineering program is ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a safety net for workers who lose their job. When a recession does hit Canada, and one will at some time or other, than it is a necessary program to ensure adequare living conditions. As an employer I'm relieved that the UI system exists. I certainly do not think it's perfect, but it is a necessity. Corporations have to ride the tide of economic ups and downs and not all of them are run by cut throat insensitive management that could layoff employees with complete disregard for their social well being. So as far as UI is concerned it has its roll in creating fluidity for corporations competing in capitalist market places. I have been fortunate that I have never had to collect UI but I don't have a problem with the principal. What I do have a problem with is government siphoning off revenue from an employment tax designed to help unemployed people who find themselves between jobs through no fault of their own, in order to finance other programs. This increases the cost of doing business and does not help employers at all. I absolutely agree with you here Wilbur. The government business of siphoning revenues from one program to fund another really should stop. Each program should be run as its own profit (or non-profit) center so the public really knows what is going on. We have that problem here in BC with ICBC revenues (amongst many others, but this example is one of the more controversial).

I think the UI guidelines are a little more strict than that. If I can recall correctly the last time I checked, an employee had to have 750 hours of recent eligible hours of employed time, and may not have had received UI for the past year. Check out: http://www100.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/ae-ei/dem-ap...lish/home2.html

Just out of curiosity could we get your take on physical appearances of male conservative mp's and how that relates to their ability to represent the Canadian public? Since you have such a great sense of humour, please humour us !! Harper looks like a passport photo... and admits it. Harper reminds me of Ferris Bueller's teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I'd bet that Ben Stein can do a really good Stephen Harper. I bet Harper can do a good Ben Stein... have you heard his impressions? You mean most of his campaign and generally every time he speaks? Yup. Ha ha guys, thanks, now I feel better.....

....Secondly, the UI program as a social engineering program is ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a safety net for workers who lose their job. When a recession does hit Canada, and one will at some time or other, than it is a necessary program to ensure adequare living conditions. As an employer I'm relieved that the UI system exists. I certainly do not think it's perfect, but it is a necessity. Corporations have to ride the tide of economic ups and downs and not all of them are run by cut throat insensitive management that could layoff employees with complete disregard for their social well being. So as far as UI is concerned it has its roll in creating fluidity for corporations competing in capitalist market places.

Well that's an interesting comment but I certainly haven't seen the math on that one. (You were referring to the Liberal government) What is your source of information for this statement ?

Thanks, this answers my question. The fact that it was 10 at night explains why he couldn't just go see his family doctor. I still think its important for him to be open and forthright with the media since he took a hardline against scandal in his campaign. He has to prove to the Canadian public that he can be trusted more so than his predecessors. There is no defense to that, he's the one that used those tactics so he's the one that has to be answerable, from day one.

Yes their dingbat leftwing policies such as lowering corporate taxes and scaling back unemployment insurance benefits make them socialist. Just like in communist China. Note that I'm not defending socialism (which is not the same thing as communism, since you seem rather confused about it). I'm simply noting that the Liberal Party of Canada is not a socialist party. Again, just because they're not neoconservatives, they're not by default socialist. It's really too bad that right leaning economic policies cannot be accompanied by some open minded social thinking....the liberals are not socialist or communist they simply allow for a better understanding of a diverse nation, and that individual communities represent differing social needs. In the last two terms the liberals have done an excellent job of managing our national economy to the extent that now there is room for more spending on social programs. This is more than you could say for previous PC economic leadership. I believe the NDP did destroy BC's economy, and as a result the poor got poorer, and so did the rich. Major corporate investors to our province's economy fled. The NDP overspent by buckets, ran us into huge deficits, and socialist programs suffered accordingly. Alberta enjoys an economically right government that reduces taxes, increases capital investment, and therefore increases the economic welfare of all of its population. More jobs, higher pay, higher discretionary income...the list goes on. Unfortunately, we see from many examples on this website that the economically right of Alberta are also social rednecks with little understanding of cultural diversity, minority rights, or even gender equality. Thankfully this is not the case in the rest of the country.

So you're equating being non-caucasian and a woman with campaign irrelgularities? Just another stigma that would prevent her from getting votes? Whether or not she seeks it she hasn't got a hope in hell of getting it but there are some voters out there who wouldn't consider your first two criteria automatically disqualify anyone. What would the next election slogan be? Vote for Harper. He's not a ______ _______ (supply your own racial and gender based slurs, two words maximum). Is that the best you can do is jump on the stigma bandwagon? Fry would be elected on the basis of politcal correctness. What the heck, why not - she is excellent and would most certainly improve race relations by declaring in Parliament that in Prince George " & I believe she added Kamloops too, that crosses are being burned on lawns. But there was a piece in a BC Newspaper at that time where Fry was seen with a group of women burning a cross at the steps of a Catholic Church. That kinda sounds to me like she was stirring up hate. I wish I could remember the ugly comments Fry made a fews years back at a Status of Women's conference and calls for her resignation were made. And that, has nothing to do with race or gender but mouth. Racism and Sexism abound amongst the conservative supporters on this website. No surprise there eh???

As to the first, for centuries, perhaps millenia it has been known that when you repress a people with brutal regimes, you create a reaction in type, in fact driving that population towards the more extreme elements among them. Hence, yes, the imperialist power and its puppet governments bear some of the responsibility for radicalizing the resistance. As to the second, you don't find your defence of U.S. policy somewhat tainted by first the support of Hussein, then the removal of his regime? First the support of Noriega, then his capture? By the support of Bin Laden against the Soviet Union? By the CIA organized murder of Allende leading to the installation of Pinochet? By the death of in excess of 3,000,000 people in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam era? They should be blamed for those actions and many more and if that all seems like business as usual to you, then there isn't much point. touche

Leafless, you are imagining all kinds of boogeymen on the streets of Canada, and then generalizing your paranoia to anyone you see who doesn't look like you. Your original post that started this thread was about going to a polling station and seeing people you knew nothing about, noticing that they had a different skin tone than you, and assuming they were in cahoots with every other dark skinned person to take over the country. You can't see that there is inherent racism in that. I'm not denying that there is crime in our streets, and a disproportionate amount of it is committed by minorities. That doesn't make all minorities responsible for the crimes, any more than you are responsible for the crimes of Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson, just because they were white. I agree with Melanie here.....Mel, do you think that part of the problem is with our immigration system? It is unfortunate for all minorities when a few bad apples give people like Leafless amunition for racist comments. But it's unfortunate that criminals be allowed to enter this country at all, and/or that deportation is not abrupt when new immigrants contribute to crime, gangs etc. I think the problem may lie with an immigration/ court system that allows criminals to stay in the country. Criminals support criminals after all and if we weeded them out from the start, I think there would be far fewer of them around. What is sad is that so called "native Canadians" (now there's a good one coming from a caucasion male)...can dwell on the few problems we actually have in this country relating to gangs etc. and who do not embrace cultural diversity and its benefits to Canadian society.

I agree with Newbie. If someone goes into public life, then they must accept the public scrutiny that goes with it. If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. We have a new PM and people are naturally curious about who he is, and what his family is like. Harper and his family, OTOH, have been to use to a lower public profile. It takes a bit of adjustment on both sides. The G & M did a good little piece on this: But the best quote comes from the Calgary Sun which I saw nowhere else: The private person and the public persona are two different things. I think Harper has a good grasp of both, as well as a better grasp of our health care system than most politicians. As per the G & M story: ""...“He thought he would like to see a doctor so he just said, ‘Let's go to the hospital.' He didn't make a big fuss about it. He just went and then he came home,” Mr. Stairs said. "" After-election polls indicate that voters that jumped on the conservative band wagon for this election were primarily concerned about the scandals and were expecting Harper to clean that up. So the Canadian public is looking for signs that Harper is an honest leader, and since he's in the spotlight now he will have to be honest and forthright about his activities, whether they be personal or not. Certainly a trip to the hospital is in the public's interest. The above quote gives you the sense that Harper was not in need of a hospital at all, just a doctor. IF this is the case could somebody please ask Harper how he thinks going to emergency for a doctor's visit is going to help the waiting lists problem that he plans to address?

Just out of curiosity could we get your take on physical appearances of male conservative mp's and how that relates to their ability to represent the Canadian public? Since you have such a great sense of humour, please humour us !!

Eloquently put Arif. Thank you for your comments. And for setting Wilbur straight. Exactly the comment that I was hoping for when I started this thread. Yes we know Concerned. You titled this thread "Harper's Foreign Policy" and then went on a rant about US foreign policy. It had nothing to do with Harper at all. Sure it did. Harper and his party and its ideologies are similar to Bush's neo-conservatives. Harper is very much a Bush supporter and Bush is happier than a pig in slop that Harper is now in power ( to the extent that he cares about Canada at all, but he's a pig in slop anyways). I'm sure that you were one of the supporters of the Iraq war and I'm sure you would have been pleased to have seen Harper back the Americans in their attack.

Eloquently put Arif. Thank you for your comments. And for setting Wilbur straight. Exactly the comment that I was hoping for when I started this thread.

Yes, but our politics seem to be going this way anyways. The bloc in Quebec and the Conservatives in Alberta. The Liberals in major cities. I read that the three worst run economies in Canadian history occured under majority governments.

Personally I'm going for Preston Manning. Now there's beauty. Oh, and that lovely Mr. Harper, there's another looker ! Somehow it doesn't make a difference to anybody what THEY look like .... On another note, you gotta love a dad who shakes hands with his kids when seeing them off to school. Oh he's all heart that Harper, Mr. Warm and Fuzzy. No feminine side to that guy !! Did he miss that whole "sensitive guys of the nineties" movement ???? I can tell you one thing, the last thing my son wanted from his dad at that age was a hug and a pat on the head in front of his school mates. Not cool at all. Perhaps he knows a little more about how to deal with adolescents than you give him credit for. Ha ha Wilber you old school guy you. His son didn't look like an adolescent to me. He looked to be about 10. His daughter looked about 5 or 6 and she went to same school so likely they are both elementary school age. My kids who are 9 and 8 both hug and kiss their mom and dad in front of their friends. I'm not saying I know anybetter how to parent kids than Harper. What I did say is that he doesn't look like Mr. Warm and Fuzzy to me and personally I like a leader that shows a bit of heart.

First, what is wrong with a party that chooses tax cuts that Canadians will notice? I personally like the idea because it promotes integrity in government and its a lot easier to see a promise broken if they never arise. The part of this you're failing to see is that Harper put his party on the line by setting this kind of agenda. If he doesn't deliver on his promises, it will be right out in plain sight for Canadians to see. We won't need the Liberals or NDP to point it out because parents will certainly notice not getting their $100 per month for child-care or for putting their children into sports programs. Harper is in a position of do or die politically because of the route he chose to take. You may think he bought it, and he very well may have. But unless he makes it past the checkout, with everything paid for, his time as PM will be short and he'll do some real damage to his party. So did he buy it? Maybe so. But he certainly cannot be accused of taking the easy way out considering the minority parliament he faces outnumbers him 3-2 against--and on a lot of issues they're united against Harper's policies. The main reason why I don't believe he 'whored' himself though, is because he's still stuck to his party's value system. He didn't sell himself out for a vote. And for the record, Harper wasn't the only one with multi-billion dollar promises. Layton's plan was just as ripe with promises, and Martin went on a $30B spending spree before the election and then went further with election promises. By your definition all three were 'whores'. As for stifling their party members expression, Layton won't allow anyone of social beliefs other than those fostered by his party even into his party and if you don't think that given advance knowledge that Martin wouldn't have stifled all the embarassing comments made by his election team you're pretty naive. I'll admit first and foremost that I shouldn't have made that post about the play on the word poll/pole. It was uncalled for and I do apologize to all who were offended by it. But I stick by my comments about her defection. If she knew what she believed all along as you insist, then why wouldn't she investigate the party she was to run for the leadership of before doing so. If she invested her companies' money like that she'd be laughed off the board in a heartbeat. I'll give you the bit about her riding. Its obvious they didn't care enough about it to send her a message. But it doesn't make her switching teams for a spot in the starting lineup seem any less fishy or any less suspicious to me. A tax cut to the gst sounded great because the gst was so controversial when it came in, and most voters can remember that. But lets do the math on this tax cut. The average canadian family makes something like 50-60,000. Lets say its 60. One third of disposable income goes to mortgage interest and property taxes, no gst on that. Another third goes to income tax and other non-gst expenses. That leaves about $20,000 of discretionary spending, some of which will have gst and some not. So lets say gst applies to about $15-$20,000 of disposable income per family. A one percent tax cut is $150-200 bucks per annum. Yee haa !! Now I'm not complaining about ANY tax cut, but personally the liberal promises worked out to be better math for me. My complaint is that Harper used a sensationalist issue to make things sound so much more of of a give-away, when really he didn't hit the average canadian with much at all.

In which case your aunt is capable of stating her own viewpoints, and doesn't need you to twist them to your own end. Why don't you invite her to make a comment here instead of commenting on her behalf? Your aunt is an exception, not the rule. I am also successful business person at the top of my organization. I got there because I quit the large corporate that gave me headaches with their boysclub attitude. I have many female friends, colleagues and employees that have alot of trouble forging through the kind of crap that certain men (not ALL men, this is not a sexist statement, I am pointing at the type of comments seen here on this website as examples of the types of lows that men with inferiority complexes towards women can stoop to....the examples are blatently here. And this is the type of shit that women do not want to put up with so choose to stay out of politics/leadership roles and in many cases do not make their way up the ladder because of it). The more male oriented the organization is, the more comments I hear from my friends as to the kind of crap that have to put up with. The police force is a good example, and did you ever know a women that happened to make it into the fire department ? Banks, know any women in bank management? Ask them how many actually make it into six figure incomes ... compare the number of men at the top to the number of women in the bottom and you will get the picture. I personally do not believe in creating equal numbers for the sake of numbers, or in reverse descrimination of any kind. I am for organizations who recognize the needs of women, respect women from the bottom of their organizations up, and challenge and encourage women to make it through the system, defending them wherever possible against the type of ignorance that they can and have been subjected to. Above is an apology from a guy that noticed his comment was offensive. Thanks for being big about it. I have never held a grudge against a guy for these types of comments nor am I a man hater. For most of my life I have been a minority amongst my piers (spelling !! ), in my career and in sports, and in other extra curricular activities. I have always been a tom-boy and have many male friends. Despite my ambitious ways to get ahead and to lead, I would NEVER enter politics just as your aunt wouldn't, exactly because of the reasons stated above. My argument is that it's really too bad that organizations such as the conservative party would take a platform that would descourage women from running in the party. And as for the comment above that most women belong at home watching the children, I certainly take personal offense to that one. The mother of three boys and the owner of a succesful business wishes to tell you that you can raise a very happy family and have a career too...perhaps I get a little more help from the male side of the family then most do, and perhaps the children are far better off because of it. Finally a hundred bucks a month for child care is a joke, and on top of that its taxable. So if you happen to be a succesful career women, not really very helpful. A tax break in this department would be far better for any women who is actually successful and wanting to pursue leadership positions, but the conservative party only cares about those at home barefoot in the kitchen. Revenue canada does not even let me write off my child care expenses. Any writeoff (which is partial) goes to my husband as he is in the lower tax bracket. Now make sense of that one. So enough of the flame throwing, I think I'll go have a beer.

Since when did women ever have an easier road than men ? She said "if we begin to..." she never said woman did have one. They never did and they never will. Particularly with guys like you around. You crack me up that I can tell you. So you attack me for a position that was proposed and supported by a woman (because you know, we can't attack them) because I agree with it. Making the situation easier for people and guaranteeing them a certain right does not foster equality. What it does foster, and I would go even further and say, CONFIRM is that women need assistance because they are not as good as men. What nonsense...I think my aunt's position is the most honourable for women. Women did not run for the conservatives because their opinions are violated by core party ideals. The very few women who did run and were elected in the conservative party are not enough in numbers to represent most Canadian female points of view on many issues. Without some sort of gender equality in a selection of cabinet members, the voting female does not get fair representation of opinion on issues presented. I might also add that the cabinet is appointed, not elected. And oh, its not a female doing the appointing. When women and men are represented equally in both a labour force and in management, women do not have a problem getting ahead. Women have problems getting ahead when the decision makers and piers are principally male. The core question here is why do so few women run for politics at all ? A male dominated world such as the world of politics means it is difficult for women to get ahead. Read some of the other posts here to get an idea of the attacks a women must face when in the public eye. Have you any idea how long it took just for women to get the vote in this country ????? As an aside, since you insist on using hearsay opinion to validate yours, I would be interested to know what rolls your aunty may have taken in male dominated worlds ? Did she have a career? Who were her piers in that career? Did she ever "get ahead" or try ? Did she play any sports or have any extra curricular activities outside of the home where maybe the majority of the people participating were not women ? Was she active in politics?