normanchateau

Went right over your head. My point was that the economy was irrelevant to the MPs' positions.

So had the Liberals, NDP and BQ formed a coalition of the majority two months after the 2006 election when the economy was strong and Harper had not yet had an opportunity to demonstrate his strategic blunders, out-of-control spending, financial mismanagement and multibillion dollar handouts to Quebec, you would favour such a coalition?

And I find it pathetic that you ignored this other issue: First of all, of course the purpose of Harper's December, 2006 motion was to take away from a significant number of Canadians their right to marry. Harper is not stupid enough to propose a motion "to take away the right to marry". Instead he called it a motion on "revisiting the traditional definition of marriage." Secondly, yes, it's a good thing to follow through on election promises. Here's a list of Stephen Harper's broken promises: http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/

First of all, what evidence do you have that the legal definition of sexual orientation is inconsistent with the medical definition? If you have such evidence, please present it. Do you seriously believe that pedophilia is part of either the medical or any legal definition of sexual orientation? That's what you suggested in a previous post. Secondly, how would including transgendered people in a medical definition of sexual orientation change my interpretation of Harper's opposition to C-250? You aren't seriously suggesting that Harper opposed making it a hate crime to advocate the murder of homosexuals because he felt that it would inadvertently take away his right to advocate the murder of transsexuals. Or are you?

First of all, of course the purpose of Harper's December, 2006 motion was to take away from a significant number of Canadians their right to marry. Harper is not stupid enough to propose a motion "to take away the right to marry". Instead he called it a motion on "revisiting the traditional definition of marriage." Secondly, yes, it's a good thing to follow through on election promises. Here's a list of Stephen Harper's broken promises: http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/

Functionally it makes sense. If society is to indoctrinate people with absurd beliefs like omnipotent bearded fairies in the sky, eternal hell and other mumbo jumbo, it is important to assign a religion before children actually begin to think for themselves. If children were not assigned a religion at birth, children might actually select a religion which made sense to them rather than mindlessly follow that of their parents. Or they might even select no religion.

Are you saying that the fact that he's not a fiscal conservative proves that he's not a social conservative?

And I suppose it's just a coincidence that Harper voted to prevent same sex marriage in 2005. No doubt it was also mere coincidence that in December, 2006, Harper introduced a motion designed to take away the right of marriage of those whose sexual orientation he did not approve of. I'm sure Harper and his supporters can come up with a list of numerous reasons why he attempted, in December 2006, to take away people's right to marry. I'm confident that homophobia, religious beliefs and social conservatism will never be mentioned. It's probably a mere coincidence that he's opposed both to same sex marriage and to hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. As Harper supporters themselves acknowledge, Harper's not stupid enough to state why he actually votes the way he votes.

I think even Stephen Harper knows how sexual orientation is defined: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ual+orientation Perhaps you're suggesting that his less educated supporters do not know how to define terms, phrases and words. In my opinion, if uneducated Harper supporters cannot define race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other terminology employed in hate crime legislation, they should educate themselves.

That's an argument against all hate speech legislation but Harper is not opposed to all hate speech legislation. Only that which refers to gays and lesbians. That's what makes his position despicable.

Apparently Harper draws the line at hate speech as it refers to homosexuals. He has no problem with hate speech legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion.

Nice try but hardly a response to my questions. Harper opposed C-250 either because he's a social conservative and religious nut.

Then why is Harper in favour of hate speech legislation as it pertains to race, ethnicity or gender? Why does he only oppose it when it relates to homosexuality? If Harper merely opposed it because he's a defender of free speech, why would he not oppose all hate legislation? He only opposes lergislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. He has no problem with legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of Christians and Jews.

I wonder if it might be because jdobbin correctly predicted that Harper would pull the plug on himself prior to the last election? Even Harper supporters can't deny that Harper is an unprincipled opportunist.

Oh really? Then why did he vote against Bill C-250 if not because he's a religious nut?

No, only those who who get down on their knees regularly in their office to pray like CPC MP John Weston. Rahim Jaffer is a Muslim but he has the intelligence not to get down on his knees sniffing the floor numerous times per day to receive his promised virgins in heaven.

I tend to agree. Past behaviour is usually the best predictor of future behaviour and Harper's past opportunistic behaviour predicts that he will indeed pull the plug on himself if he senses that it's in his best interests. Whoever replaces Dion will perform better than Dion so it's in Harper's best interests to once again ignore what Canadians want and call an election sooner rather than later. He was reinforced for pulling the plug on himself last time and this can only encourage him to repeat this behaviour.

Ignatieff, who like Harper thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq, certainly won't help the Liberals recapture votes they've lost to the Greens and NDP. And why would CPC voters switch from Harper to Ignatieff? The conservative vote, in five consecutive elections, has never been above 38%. With social conservative Harper as leader, it's not likely to get much higher. The task for the Liberals is to recapture votes from the left rather than vainly hoping to whittle away CPC support.

Harper also deserves praise for who he chose not to put in Cabinet. There had been much media speculation that John Weston, who took the riding formerly held by John Reynolds, would be appointed to Cabinet. Both Harper and Weston are Evangelical Christians who share a number of social conservative beliefs. A 2005 column in The Globe and Mail reported that Weston wrote an article for the Christian Legal Fellowship website where he explained that what distinguished his law firm from other firms where he had worked was "the regularity and informality of prayer practiced by the partners." A lawyer working for a firm whose partners are regularly on their knees praying seemed like a natural choice for Harper. But Harper resisted and for that he deserves praise.

Parliament voted to extend the mission to 2011. Harper's position is that we will cut and run in 2011 whether the Taliban are winning or losing: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2...fghanistan.html There has been no vote to extend the mission beyond 2011.

Thanks for the clarification and I hope it passes this time. If the federal system is ever to change, it will probably first require changes at the provincial level.

Then Harper abandoned the Liberals and joined the Progressive Conservatives. Then he left the Progressive Conservatives because he was outraged with Mulroney's spending. Then he joined Reform because they were fiscal conservatives. Then he left Reform to head the National Citizens Coalition after Manning replaced Harper with Grubel as Reform finance critic. Now Harper has increased spending by percentages which make the Liberals and PCs look tight-fisted. What an incredible flip flopping hypocrite he has turned out to be.

Harper listening to Canadians? Utter crap and outrageous. A majority of Canadians not only support decriminalization of marijuana, a position consistent with that of other political parties, but a majority also support the legalization of marijuana: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300

You are Jewish by your own and NSDAP definition. Can you not see how absurd that definition is given that Judaism is a religion, not a race? If it were a race, how do you account for the skin colour of Indian Jews in Bombay and Cochin, black Jews of Ethiopia, Oriental Jews, etc.? Black Jews existed in Ethiopia more than 2000 years ago before Christianity had even been conceived. Yet they differ racially from European Jews.

Unfortunately Stephen Harper is no Winston Churchill. Churchill had principles. Harper panders.