BubberMiley

If I may speak for Err, I think he was trying to demonstrate the overall Republican mindset.

Harper didn't doubt the military's capability in 2003. He said we should send them.

I never understood the vandalism mentality until I got drunk.

Point taken, Traveller, but it often takes a few years before the signs of an economic turnaround show up in statistics like the ones you link. The markets themselves (i.e., things like house prices, unemployment figures, consumer spending) and signs of prosperity on the horizon (like the Conawapa dam deal where Manitoba will be providing Ontario and the northern States with a great deal of energy) are more accurate signs of where things are at right now. Winnipeg housing prices have gone up something like 40% in the last two years, and the most recent Labour Force Survey showed that, in November, unemployment went down to 4.2%, the lowest since April 1976 (and second lowest in Canada). Oh, and I'm not "blaming the Indians." It's just a fact that reserves in Canada are like mini-Third World countries.

Besides, what's morally wrong with having labour camps? It seems like a productive use of the prison system to me. It beats having cons playing PS2 and watching porn.

They'll never learn that banning things doesn't work; it just creates black markets and organized crime and a worse situation than before they messed with it. That was the case with prohibition, that's the case with marijuana, and that's the case with handguns. More people drank under prohibition, more people smoke weed under its prohibition, and now gun crimes are rising in Canada.

Oh, and Manitoba also has the second lowest unemployment rate in the country, though I realize to most Conservatives that's a bad thing, because then they have to pay people a living wage.

So Leafless, you wrote: And in another thread, wrote: So I can't resist. Just where do you come from?

Actually Manitoba is doing very well since they tossed the Conservatives. Balanced budgets every year, tons of cash from hydroelectricity that they're now selling to the northern states and Ontario. I don't know where you get your info from.

Well, FTA, I am no Rosa Parks. I just used that analogy to demonstrate that sometimes conscientiously breaking the law can be a moral stand. But I'm far too cowardly to deliberately get arrested. If you therefore find it unethical for me to be stoned and b*tching at the man in my basement, well, I can live with that. That wasn't what the debate was about anyway.

Finally a CPCer who isn't afraid to say what he thinks, even during an election.

I didn't think a winking smiley face was necessary when I said Christmas is on its way out, Sharkman I thought the sarcasm would be obvious. I must remember to s-p-e-l-l things out for you more clearly. (Oh, and BTW, why'd you back down from the pot debate? Out of your league, again.

Huh? That makes no sense.

To clarify, I think CPCers are overly defensive. Anything that isn't taken verbatum from conservative.ca is dismissed as "out-of-date" and "scare tactics." They don't seem to realize that this defensiveness and reluctance to stand by their stated positions is what makes them seem like they have a "hidden agenda."

I'll take that one (even though I wasn't involved in that post). Iraq is a Muslim country. It was secular under Saddaam, hence his lack of involvement with al Qaeda, but it's still Muslim. And the U.S. invading any Muslim soil is going to get their dander up.

http://www.conservative.ca/ feel free to look it up yourself...if your'e not at least going to educate yourself about the parties before the election, do the rest of the country a favour and abstain from voting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've read the CPC policy and I've read the speech and, again, I don't really see a lot of differences. They certainly don't conflict with each other

I think he would be more electable if he were willing to just show his cards more. People wouldn't have to just trust him by his soft, warm eyes. It's not like this speech makes him seem like a wingnut or anything. For some reason, CPCers knee-jerk reactions whenever something shows how he thinks is "That's not what we think."

But it's nice to be able to get an idea of where your future PM is coming from before he's elected. His ideology may not be the direction Canada will absolutely follow under his leadership, but you can't say it's irrelevant.

What parts aren't the policy? All of them? How do they differ?

You can't get past the date?

So Sharkman, is there anything in Harper's speech you don't agree with?

Cybercoma, you're not reading the whole thread. I was referring to a specific quote by Leafless, which he appears to have since recanted. We all agree to love Canada. Let's move on.

But when Harper keeps his actual positions so close to his vest, or obviously waters them down to appear more electable, this gives voters a chance to see what he really stands for. If CPCers are going to discount it as an "8-year-old speech--that means nothing," I'd like to seem them identify the positions he discusses that they don't agree with.

Leafless, I think I made the same basic point as you (though more concisely) when I said:

Not really flip-flopping or never really said it? Check the Washington Times thread if you need sources.