normanchateau

In retrospect, perhaps it's good that Harper said what he said about not decriminalizing marijuana. There's no need to accuse him of a hidden agenda. His agenda on this topic isn't hidden. It's merely irrational and a reminder that he's a politician of the 1920's. That's when alcohol was legalized and a far less harmful substance like marijuana was criminalized. Despite all the evidence that's been collected since, Harper's position remains irrational and anachronistic.

You have never posted anything that questions any ND politician or policy. What is it that you don't especially like about the NDs? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The federal NDP is not as fiscally conservative as I'd like. Perhaps they need to look to the provincial NDP governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

And what would Stevie have done? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do: October 13, 2005 Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels. September 9, 2005 Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue. Source for the above: http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The emphasis on this is to find new markets, that's makes good business sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, that's why Martin proposed it. But I'll ask you again? How is Stephen Harper's approach to the softwood lumber dispute different from Martin's? Do you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory trade measures against the US? Do you agree with him taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We won't know until Jan. 23. The distinction is not the message but the delivery. The Liberals throw in the anti-American comments for reasons known only to themselves. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We won't know whether you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory measures against the US until January 23rd? We won't know whether you agree with Harper taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate until January 23rd?

Here's the latest Canadian poll I could find. It's from July, 2005. It indicates that 55% of Canadians want Bill C-38 to stand and 39% want it repealed. Sure 55% is less than the 69% who favour decriminalization of marijuana but it's further evidence that Stephen Harper is out of step with the majority of Canadians. Here's the July poll: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...tem/itemID/8147

Normie, your nose is growing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? What did I say that's not true?

And what would Stevie have done? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do: October 13, 2005 Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels. September 9, 2005 Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue. Source for the above: http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The emphasis on this is to find new markets, that's makes good business sense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, that's why Martin proposed it. But I'll ask you again? How is Stephen Harper's approach to the softwood lumber dispute different from Martin's? Do you agree with Harper threatening retaliatory trade measures against the US? Do you agree with him taking a hardline approach and refusing to negotiate?

I disagree. The media has already been reporting on Harper's past only because it was Harper's recent statements that prompted the appropriate research. If the media on its own accord just starts to dig out Harper's past, they'll be accused of media-bias harder than they are already now. Harper already has overwhelming coverage and Layton, almost none. The only coverage the Liberals get is the gaffes and the controversies. If I had the time, I would clock the coverage each party gets in a one-week period. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good points Daniel. On further reflection, the more the media remind us of Harper's past positions, the more they'll be accused of bias. Perhaps that's why they've failed to remind Canadians that Harper opposed adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. The media do appear biased in terms of providing far more coverage to a party to the right of the Liberals than parties to the left such as the NDP and BQ.

I disagree that Harper has no backbone. On the issue of softwood lumber, he not only said that he'd take a hardline position with the US and refuse to bargain (September 9, 2005), he subsequently said he'd threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures (October 13, 2005). This sounds remarkably like some aspects of Jack Layton's position. Good for Harper for periodically showing that he has a little backbone even if it does require that he mimics the position of other parties. If Harper were to position himself to the left of the Liberals, he might actually pick up a few votes instead of turning off those to the left with his socially conservative positions on homosexuals and marijuana. His anti-SSM and anti-decriminalization policies aren't likely to extract a single vote from those to the left of CPC.

And what would Stevie have done? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since you've still not answered the question, I'll tell you what Stephen Harper himself said he'd do: October 13, 2005 Stephen Harper said that a Conservative government would threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures. Harper went on to say that there must be repercussions from the refusal of the Americans to respect decisions by NAFTA dispute-resolution panels. September 9, 2005 Stephen Harper said that as Prime Minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over the issue. Source for the above: http://www.wednesday-night.com/Softwood-Lumber.asp I wonder why Harper's approach sounds so remarkably familiar?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> That last reply from Normanc is a pretty low blow, I don't see how a comment such as that adds to any debate. I suppose in some minds quantity trumps quality. cheers <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think it's a low blow to suggest that there's a disproportionate number of CPC supporters on this board.

And what would Stevie have done?

The ring was $5000 - assuming you care about facts.]Assuming YOU care about facts, you should apologise to Burns. He has it right. You have it wrong.My mistake he was charged with theft over $5000 - I thought that was the price of the ring. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I recently purchased a diamond ring at an auction. If any of you have also done so, you'd know that at a Vancouver auction, rings tend to fitch between a quarter and a tenth of appraised value. The ring Robinson lifted was appraised at 50,000-60,000 but was worth far less. Appraisals reflect the insurance value and retail value but auction prices are a fraction of that. Whatever the value, Robinson's behaviour was totally unacceptable.

He was un-electable before that speech was brought to our attention. I don't think any Canadian has forgotten that he wanted us to join the Coalition of the Willing and went to the US media to say so just a few short years ago. Or that he wanted us to exclude gay bashing from hate crimes legislation. Or that he wants to jail people for simple possession of marijuana. Or that he made a homophobic comment in the House of Commons for which he later apologized. The media have been bending over for Harper in this campaign, letting him choose his agenda. It's time the lazy media started reminding Canadians about Harper's beliefs...and not just Harper's stated beliefs during the current campaign. Given the media's dazed inattention, you'd think every hateful position he had ever expressed had suddenly evaporated into thin air.

Maybe less. If I ever found Harper campaigners at my door, my laughter at their poor choice of a leader would instantly make them realize that they're wasting their time. Maybe next time when CPC picks a more socially tolerant leader, I'll actually listen to their message when they knock at my door.

Now given that Mulroney's "diplomacy" totally failed on softwood lumber, and the US has now twice reduced softwood tariffs in the short time since Martin became Prime Minister, what would Harper do differently? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Recent events with both NAFTA and WTO rulings (real diplomacy by professionals not appointees) have allowed some progress on this dispute. Liberal rhetoric has done nothing, nada, zero to influence this progress. The difference between Harper and Martin is to stop the rhetoric and concentrate on the issue at hand. That's what leaders do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You call this an answer to my question? Are you not aware of how the US reacted to the NAFTA and WTO rulings? They ignored them. The US Department of Commerce rolled back the duties after Martin and McKenna escalated their criticism of the US for not complying. Mulroney, like Chretien, was totally ineffective in getting any concessions from the US. But there have now been two major reductions in the softwood lumber duty since Martin took office. Of course it helps that Martin has reminded the US that Canada is the world's largest supplier of energy to the US. And even Harper, if asked how he'd handle softwood lumber, would have come up with a less superficial and more meaningful response than he'd "stop the rhetoric and concentrate on the issue at hand."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right Shoopie. To suggest all CPC MPs are social conservatives is as bad as suggesting the entire Liberal party is corrupt even though no Liberals outside Quebec were even remotely linked to adscam. Returning to the topic of the thread: At this point no one needs to go to jail to make the point that marijuana should be decriminalized. All they need to do is not vote for Stephen Harper. The NDP, BQ, Liberals and Greens all support decriminalization.

Seems that there are far more Harper supporters on this board than there are Liberal or NDP supporters. But so far no one seems to be suggesting that the large number of CPC supporters here are paid by CPC. Could it be that CPC supporters are simply more paranoid and subject to conspiracy theories? Or could it be that given the quality of some of the arguments put forth by some Harper supporters, no one would ever suspect them of being worthy of a CPC pay cheque?

Thousands of Canadians have already been jailed for the crime of simple possession. I believe we're past the point where anyone else needs to be jailed to make Canadians aware of this unjust law. Canadians are aware. I assume the 69% who support decriminalization are already aware that the law is unjust. The government is aware and that's why they tabled the decriminalization legislation. The NDP and BQ will support the legislation although it's been reported that Layton would prefer legalization to decriminalization. At this point, decriminalization doesn't require one more person going to jail. It requires only that Stephen Harper and his band of social conservatives not be elected.

Depends on how you define progress. The US reduced it's duties on softwood lumber from 27% to 20% last year. On December 5, 2005, the US Department of Commerce reduced the duties from 20% to 11%. This followed shortly after Paul Martin addressed powerful business groups in the US and reminded them how dependent the US was on Canadian energy and how NAFTA had ruled in Canada's favour. It followed Martin's rebuke of Bush at an international conference. It followed Frank McKenna informing various media and the American public of Canada's position on softwood lumber. The US first imposed tariffs on softwood lumber in the 80's when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister before NAFTA even existed. Mulroney used a different form of diplomacy. He drank with Ronald Reagan. He sang with Ronald Reagan. He bent over for Ronald Reagan. Yet every effort to reduce softwood tariffs was rebuffed by Reagan. Mulroney and his Conservative diplomats were totally unsuccessful in getting even a token reduction in tariffs. That's one of the reasons Mulroney negotiated NAFTA. He figured with an objective free trade agreement in place, the US would need to comply with it's rulings. Now given that Mulroney's "diplomacy" totally failed on softwood lumber, and the US has now twice reduced softwood tariffs in the short time since Martin became Prime Minister, what would Harper do differently?

I wouldn't wish that on anyone...not even Stephen Harper.

BM, you've either forgotten or not yet learned how we play the game on this discussion board. You're not supposed to say that both leaders were simply unwilling to give a serious answer to a ridiculous question. There are only two acceptable responses here when Martin and Harper are being discussed. One is "Martin bad, Harper good". The other is "Harper bad, Martin good". Perhaps you don't know this because you're still a "Junior Member" as indicated by the two blue squares near your name.

But Shoopie I was defending him from those unfair Liberal accusations of "hidden agenda".

It is unfair for Liberals to keep referring to Harper's hidden agenda. Harper is quite open about his agenda. He revealed part of it on the first day of the campaign. About a week later in British Columbia he revealed what Liberal-tabled legislation he won't reintroduce. His social conservative agenda is sufficiently transparent in my opinion.

Apparently Stephen Harper shares your sentiments given his inability or lack of desire to say he loves his country.

Clearly we were not willing. I believe we could have sent a token handful of troops if we were willing. However if you prefer to believe that Tonga, Moldava and Fiji were more able than Canada because they weren't in Afghanistan, you are welcome to that belief. We should probably give thanks that neither Tonga, Fiji nor Moldova chose to invade us at that time since every conceivable Canadian soldier was abroad. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Could we have sent along some token troops? Sure, I suppose. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you for supporting my point.