normanchateau

Latest Ekos poll has Conservatives at 33%, Liberals at 26% and NDP at 19% federally. In Ontario, it's Conservatives 33%, Liberals 33% and NDP at 20%. In Quebec, it's BQ 42%, Liberals 21%, Conservatives 17% and NDP at 15%. http://www.ekoselection.com/index.php/2008...october-6-2008/ Given that more than 50% of Quebecers watched the French debate, the reversal in Harper's fortunes in Quebec is no surprise. Duceppe wisely pointed out to Quebecers that Harper wanted Canada to invade Iraq in 2003 while Harper squirmed and grinned weakly but failed to refute the point. The irony here is that Harper now wants, Layton-like, to cut and run from Afghanistan but the damage done in Quebec I suspect is now irreversible.

Neither the Left nor the Right has a monopoly on selectively identifying religious nuts. May and Harper are religious nuts and I've stated that previously: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....aded&start= Canada does not need a religious nut as leader. One needs only to look at the US and Iran to see the damage such leaders can do to their country.

(1) Learn to use quotes. (2) What are "phlysophical postions"? Sorry but I must leave this board now and do something productive. Goodbye.

Yes it does demonstrate two points. Neither point changes my point. Stephen Harper is a social conservative.

That must be why Harper voted twice against same sex marriage.

No doubt you are equally concerned about the inability of Western newspapers to publish cartoons depicting Mohammed.

I don't give a damn whether Dion and Martin are good Catholics or bad Catholics as long as they're not social conservatives in their voting patterns. Stephen Harper is apparently a good evangelical Christian in that he not only voted twice against same sex marriage but he also voted against making it a hate crime to advocate killing homosexuals and lesbians. I remain amused that you don't view Harper as a social conservative. It's because many Harper supporters share your view that CPC is saddled with a leader who will never win a majority in Canada.

I don't give a damn whether Dion and Martin are good Catholics or bad Catholics as long as they're not social conservatives in their voting patterns. Stephen Harper is apparently a good evangelical Christian in that he not only voted twice against same sex marriage but he also voted against making it a hate crime to advocate killing homosexuals and lesbians. I remain amused that you don't view Harper as a social conservative. It's because many Harper supporters share your view that CPC is saddled with a leader who will never win a majority in Canada.

Yes, a libertarian view would be absolute free speech. But that's not Harper's view. He favours hate crime legislation based on religion and race but opposes hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. As I said before, if you don't view Harper's extreme position on marijuana prohibition and opposition Bill C-250 as evidence of social conservatism, there's no point in me trying to convince you that he's a social conservative. Since most Canadians favour decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana and since most Canadians are not social conservatives, it is no surprise that Harper will never win a majority.

BC was the only province in Canada where the Conservatives actually lost seats both in 2004 and 2006. It won't happen this time even though a majority of British Columbians continue to favour parties other than the right wing Conservatives.

So why does Stephen Harper favour hate crime legislation against promoting murder on the basis of religion? Because he's a social conservative.

I think Harper is wise to muzzle this CPC MP: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2004/12/01/TheManw...swithDinosaurs/

You and I must differ on how we define social conservatism. Do you not view voting against making it a hate crime to promote the murder of homosexuals as being socially conservative? As leader of the Alliance Party, Harper and his Alliance MPs voted against Bill C-250 even though the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and PCs voted for it. Harper favours hate crime legislation with respect to religion and ethnicity but NOT sexual orientation. And if you don't view harper's anti-libertarian view towards marijuana as socially conservative, there's really no point in arguing with you. When Harper campaigned in late 2005, he campaigned against the Liberals' marijuana decriminalization legislation. Now he's introduced legislation requiring judges to impose mandatory sentences of six months for one marijuana plant.

"Stephen Harper defeated Stockwell Day in a Canadian Alliance leadership campaign in 2002-MAR. During the leadership race Harper criticized Day's reliance on signing up members at churches and allying himself with Evangelical and Catholic pro-life groups." http://www.religioustolerance.org/poli_crel.htm Sure sounds like Harper trying to muzzle Day's reliance on religious nuts. Harper knows that winning a majority requires him to pretend not be be a crazed social conservative and religious extremist.

Given the quality of some of the CPC candidates, he is doomed to remain a control freak. And why would he want Donna Cadman to speak to the media and remind Canadians that she accused Harper of knowing about the bribe? The reason why Art Hangar's committee has yet to approve Harper's omnibus crime bill is that Hangar shuts down the committee because they keep raising the issue of Harper and Cadman. Fortunately after October 14th, I suspect some of his supporters will begin to question his control over the party as they come to realize that they'll never win a majority with control freak Harper as leader.

This will probably surprise you but the US also has stem cell research and abortion. And Canada has same sex marriage despite the efforts of social conservative and religious nut Stephen Harper to prevent it. Twice he voted against it and twice a majority of MPs voted for it. If the majority voted the way Stephen Harper did, even hate laws against promoting murder of homosexuals would not have passed. And if Stephen Harper had been Prime Minister in 2003, today Canadians would be dying in Iraq. Fortunately, as today's polls indicate, Canadians are finally wising up to who Stephen Harper is. You're right that Harper is no George Bush. Harper will never receive the kind of electoral support in Canada that Bush did in the US. Canadians are grateful for that.

Perhaps Donna Cadman also had other commitments. I'm sure "leader" Harper has no motive to muzzle her.

Not all anti-Semites are ignorant liberal bigots. McCain and Sarah Palin for example: http://thepoorman.net/2008/09/11/mccain-en...ut-anti-semite/ http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/...ti-semitic.html

What's good for Canada is that Harper receive even less votes next week than he did in 2006. The polls now show that's a distinct possibility. It really is a shame that with an overwhelming number of Canadians planning not to vote for this right winger, he will still likely obtain a plurality. Fortunately, the combined opposition in parliament will guarantee that this social conservative with a bizarre notion of democracy doesn't have the opportunity to run amuck.

He's not just like George Bush but he shares views with George Bush. Like George Bush, Harper opposes embryonic stem cell research, abortion, same sex marriage. Like George Bush, he wanted to invade Iraq in 2003. Like George Bush, he believes in mandatory jail time for as little as one marijuana plant. Harper also opposed making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals and lesbians. This law (Bill C-250) passed anyway because the other parties overwhelmingly supported it. Even Peter MacKay voted for C-250 but not religious nut Harper. Just as the Liberals blundered by selecting Dion as their leader, the Conservatives blundered by selecting Harper, a social conservative who's reviled in Quebec and appears unlikely to win a majority.

If I were a Conservative party strategist, I'd totally favour this approach of muzzling candidates. Imagine if Donna Cadman were now to speak to the media. It could only backfire on Harper. And a Cabinet minister who jokes about listeria deaths is best muzzled as well. When Stockwell Day insisted that dinosaurs and humans co-existed and that Earth was 4,000 years old, even Harper, who keeps quiet about his similar religious beliefs, thought Day should be muzzled. Given the large number of Conservative candidates who are stupider than Harper, he's wise to muzzle them.

I agree. Yet the incompetent Harper seems not to understand this. In 2005, our marginal income tax rates were 15%, 22%, 26% and 29%. In 2006, Harper raised the lowest marginal rate to 15.25%. In 2007, Harper announced to the media that he'd lowered income taxes In 2007, Canada's marginal income tax rates were 15%, 22%, 26% and 29%. Economists who've compared the stimulatory effects of GST vs income tax cuts, overwhelmingly favour income tax cuts. To those who disagree, please provide a citation indicating that GST cuts are more economy-stimulating than cuts in income tax rates.

That must be why Harper dodged Duceppe's question about whether Harper, if he were Prime Minister in 2003, would have joined Bush in invading Iraq. Despite going on US television to attack Canada's government for not invading Iraq, and despite his statements to Canadians in 2003, Harper dodged and slithered like a slimy reptile. And yes, you're right. If Harper had answered honestly he would have looked bad. Duceppe's strategy in reminding Quebecers about Harper's Bush-like desire to invade Iraq has probably contributed to Harper now being in third place in the polls in Quebec.

In the latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll, Conservative support has now dwindled to 32%... http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...9dfUB1UWVq6OIzw Perhaps next time the Conservatives will select a leader who's a fiscal conservative rather than a social conservative.

Apparently you cannot grasp the concept of people voting for their second choice if they believe that will stop a Harper candidate from taking the riding. But then again, why should I expect more from those who believe that physicians and those in other professions do not have "real jobs"? Of course you will continue repeatedly to ignore my initial point, which is to challenge the Harper supporter's notion that physicians do not have real jobs.