normanchateau

I notice none of the Harper supporters have answered this question. No doubt they realize that a majority of Canadians oppose the mission. But apparently the wishes of the majority are only important when it comes to the rights of bible thumpers, religious nuts and social conservatives to discriminate against other Canadians.

Canada lead the G-7 when Harper became Prime Minister. Canada is now in sixth place in economic growth. Only one G-7 nation now ranks lower. This country was in deficit for two months and is close to being in deficit again because of the inept moron's squandering of the huge surplus he inherited from the previous government. Instead of using the huge surplus to lower income taxes, this financial incompetent increased government spending again and again and again. But then, what can Canadians expect from this financial incompetent given: "The 2008 budget set spending growth at 3.4 per cent this fiscal year. The department of finance reported last month that expenditures grew by 11.1 per cent in June alone and swelled an eye-popping 8.4 per cent in the first three months of the year. This is two-and-a-half times the 2008 budget plan. “The Conservatives continue to claim they will still hit 3.4 per cent in spending growth for the year, but they’ve proven throughout their term in office that they can’t stop themselves from spending,” said Canadian taxpayers Federation research director Adam Taylor. “Their first budget called for Ottawa’s expenditures to grow by 5.4 per cent in fiscal 2006/07. At the end of that year government receipts had jumped by 7.5 per cent. The 2007 budget plan announced an additional 5.6 per cent spending hike. The real amount in 2007/08 was a 6.9 per cent increase.” Do you deny these figures from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation? What a financial moron the inept Harper is. No wonder Preston Manning threw him out as Finance Critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a fiscal conservative. Herb Grubel, not surprisingly, views income tax cuts as more helpful to the economy than GST cuts.

In his 2005 budget, Paul Martin increased military spending by 12.8 billion dollars over five years. Buy how much has Stephen Harper increased military spending beyond that?

Prior to the 2006 election, the Liberals promised an income tax cut. Harper promised a GST cut. Which one makes more economic sense. Here's what economists said: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/na...reac051201.html Now if you have evidence that GST cuts are more effective than personal income tax cuts in promoting work, promoting saving, helping us invest more and raising living standards in the future, let's have a link to that evidence. On a purchase of $50, the GST cut saves you a grand total of $1. Wow. An income tax cut would be far more equitable, since it would benefit everyone who works and pays income tax -- we wouldn't have to buy a new car or fridge or stereo system to realize noticeable savings. Only an incompetent like Harper would view a GST cut as more useful than a personal income tax cut. But then, what can Canadians expect from this financial incompetent given: "The 2008 budget set spending growth at 3.4 per cent this fiscal year. The department of finance reported last month that expenditures grew by 11.1 per cent in June alone and swelled an eye-popping 8.4 per cent in the first three months of the year. This is two-and-a-half times the 2008 budget plan. “The Conservatives continue to claim they will still hit 3.4 per cent in spending growth for the year, but they’ve proven throughout their term in office that they can’t stop themselves from spending,” said Canadian taxpayers Federation research director Adam Taylor. “Their first budget called for Ottawa’s expenditures to grow by 5.4 per cent in fiscal 2006/07. At the end of that year government receipts had jumped by 7.5 per cent. The 2007 budget plan announced an additional 5.6 per cent spending hike. The real amount in 2007/08 was a 6.9 per cent increase.” Do you deny these figures from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation? What a financial moron the inept Harper is. No wonder Preston Manning threw him out as Finance Critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a fiscal conservative. Herb Grubel, not surprisingly, views income tax cuts as more helpful to the economy than GST cuts.

For me it was the spelling.

Canadian income tax rates in 2005: 15%, 22%, 26%, 29% Canadian income tax rates in 2006: 15.25%, 22%, 26%, 29% Canadian income tax rates in 2007: 15%, 22%, 26%, 29% Only a Harper supporter would call these tax cuts. Meanwhile the financially incompetent Harper has taken a surplus in the billions and totally squandered it instead of cutting our income tax rates: "The 2008 budget set spending growth at 3.4 per cent this fiscal year. The department of finance reported last month that expenditures grew by 11.1 per cent in June alone and swelled an eye-popping 8.4 per cent in the first three months of the year. This is two-and-a-half times the 2008 budget plan. “The Conservatives continue to claim they will still hit 3.4 per cent in spending growth for the year, but they’ve proven throughout their term in office that they can’t stop themselves from spending,” said Canadian taxpayers Federation research director Adam Taylor. “Their first budget called for Ottawa’s expenditures to grow by 5.4 per cent in fiscal 2006/07. At the end of that year government receipts had jumped by 7.5 per cent. The 2007 budget plan announced an additional 5.6 per cent spending hike. The real amount in 2007/08 was a 6.9 per cent increase.” Do you deny these figures from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation? What a financial moron the inept Harper is. No wonder Preston Manning threw him out as Finance Critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a fiscal conservative.

If polls show that a majority of Canadians oppose the mission in Afghanistan, should Harper pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan?

Given that they are both religious nuts, you would think that Harper would welcome her to the debates. She's more forthcoming than Harper about her religious nuttiness so she could actually make Harper look somewhat more rational.

Please do. Tell us more about how the Liberals single-handedly made it possible for lesbians to marry thereby devaluing the marriage of every god-fearing heterosexual Canadian. No wonder religious nut Harper voted against it.

Just because the reprehensible Harper is about to win a majority of the MPs despite a majority of Canadians opposing him is no reason not to vote. Let's never ever forget that most Canadians vehemently oppose him and everything he stands for. That's why most Canadians won't vote for CPC as long as Harper leads it. There needs to be a loud and vocal opposition to Harper's social conservatism, intolerance and wasteful spending. I'm voting strategically by voting for the candidate in my riding who stands the best chance of defeating Harper's candidate. A vocal opposition can still get things done. The Reform Party was remarkably effective in promoting fiscal conservatism while in opposition. It can happen again. A united and effective opposition will prevent Harper from being able to deceive the Canadian electorate in 2012. I'm not as discouraged as you. The shift to CPC among Canadian voters is not huge even though it translates to a huge increase in seats in the House of Commons. A majority of Canadians, about 60%, still oppose the deplorable Harper. Probably no more than 30% of Canadians actually share his social conservatism, intolerance to homosexuals, jail time for marijuana smokers, religious fundamentalism, ad nauseam. So we're left with the swing vote, about 10% of Canadians, who are voting for Harper this time because Dion has been a disappointment and not because they have suddenly become intolerant, social conservatives like the other 30%. As the economy deteriorates, that 10% will become as disappointed in Harper as they were in Dion.

I got Layton as well but won't vote NDP. I intend to engage in strategic voting, if only to reduce Harper's majority.

Depends on how you define scandal. The following cabinet ministers resigned or were fired for wrongdoing during Mulroney's first term in office: Robert Coates, Marcel Masse, John Fraser, Sinclair Stevens, André Bissonnette, Roch La Salle. Not a cabinet minister but equally embarrassing to the Conservatives was Quebec MP Michel Gravel, who in 1986 was charged with 50 counts of fraud and influence peddling. He later pleaded guilty to 15 charges, paid a $50,000 fine and served four months in jail. If Mulroney is any example, Harper could have large numbers of scandals and still be re-elected with another majority. No one is going to vote against lawbreaker Harper for breaking his own election date law. Even a recording of Harper talking about a bribe to Cadman won't do him in. Nor will profligate spending nor a history of social conservatism and intolerance. Nothing will prevent Harper from getting a majority at this point. For all intents and purposes, the election campaign is over.

Yes and no. Yes, he's a continuation in that Mulroney was a big spender and Harper is a big spender. Neither is behaving in a way you'd expect a financial conservative to behave. Mulroney drove the country into deficit. Harper is taking us in that direction with his out-of-control spending and multibillion dollar handouts such as 4 billion dollars from the rest of Canada promised to Quebecers to buy their votes: http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2954 No, Harper's not a continuation in that Mulroney was socially moderate and an environmentalist. Harper is so socially conservative that he even voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. The legislation passed thanks to support from the Liberals, PCs, Bloc and NDP. But religious nut Harper voted against it. Yet Harper has no problem with hate crime legislation per se.

Mine didn't nor did those of my wife or daughter. If your's went down it was not because of a change in income tax rates. They remain 15%, 22%, 26% and 29%. Or do you think marginal income tax rates have gone down? I notice not a single person on this board has defended Harper's phenomenal increase in government spending. Not even the most partisan Harper supporter can defend this level of financial ineptitude. And to those who claim that the Harper government has lowered their income taxes, if this were true for all taxpayers, it would mean government revenues are dropping while government spending is increasing. This type of voodoo economics is not sustainable and leads to deficits. It's too bad Dion is so remarkably inarticulate that he can't get this simple message across to Canada allowing Harper to claim falsely and repeatedly that he's "financially conservative".

The Conservatives need only to get above 40% for a majority and Dion, rejected by francophones annd barely understood by anglophones, has ensured that happens. Sometime between now and before the 2012 election, assuming lawbreaker Harper actually follows his own laws next time, the Liberals need to acquire not only a new leader but also a merger with another party. The Canadian Alliance and PCs were able to merge thanks to a person of minimal integrity, Peter MacKay breaking his promise, and behind-the-scenes manouevering by people of even less integrity, Brian Mulroney and Belinda Stronach. To re-emerge as a viable party, the Liberals will need to find similar types to engineer a merger and to find a leader who can, like Harper, be sold to Canadians as someone he is not.

I suspect that the majority of Canadians have little doubt about the religious nut's agenda, hidden or not. Harper's mandatory six months for one marijuana plant legislation is not hidden. Nonetheless, Harper will get his majority because those who oppose social conservatism will be splitting the vote in four directions.

Could it be this? The 2008 budget set spending growth at 3.4 per cent this fiscal year. The department of finance reported last month that expenditures grew by 11.1 per cent in June alone and swelled an eye-popping 8.4 per cent in the first three months of the year. This is two-and-a-half times the 2008 budget plan. Or this? “The Conservatives continue to claim they will still hit 3.4 per cent in spending growth for the year, but they’ve proven throughout their term in office that they can’t stop themselves from spending,” said CTF research director Adam Taylor. “Their first budget called for Ottawa’s expenditures to grow by 5.4 per cent in fiscal 2006/07. At the end of that year government receipts had jumped by 7.5 per cent. The 2007 budget plan announced an additional 5.6 per cent spending hike. The real amount in 2007/08 was a 6.9 per cent increase.” http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2954 Or could it be that the Harper Conservatives are the biggest spending government in the history of Canada? http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php Or could it be that the middle class benefits from Harper's "cut" in personal income tax rates? Here are Canada's marginal tax rates in 2005: 15%, 22%, 26% and 29%. In 2006, the Conservatives raised them to 15.25%, 22%, 26% and 29%. In 2007, they "lowered" them to 15%, 22%, 26% and 29%. Now they actually have the nerve to claim in their election ads that they've lowered income tax rates for the middle class. Canadians need only to check their T1's for 2005, 2006 and 2007 to see that marginal income tax rates remain the same as before the 2006 election. With their out-of-control spending, no wonder the financially challenged and incompetent Harper can't lower income tax rates. :angry: But the blatantly dishonest Harper and CPC have no problem falsely telling Canadians that they've lowered income tax rates.

What's especially smart is Harper's refusal to state his personal views. That way his supporters can believe whatever they want to believe. Moderates think he's one of them. So do social conservatives and religious nuts.

Here's an interview with Harper in 2006: Newman: On the issue of abortion, will you pledge that there will be no legislation on abortion, there will never be a free vote in Parliament on that issue? Harper: Never is a long time. What I'm saying is I have no desire to see that issue debated in the near future. We're saying very clear in our platform we're not going to support or initiate abortion legislation and frankly I don't want this Parliament to have an abortion debate. Newman: So to be clear, you support a woman's right to choose? Harper: I've always said my views on the abortion issue are complex, I don't fall into any of the neat polar extremes on this issue. Newman: Explain them then if they are complex. Harper: No, I don't need to because I'm not proceeding with an abortion agenda. http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=...33-277b9108da61 In other words, Harper refuses to state where he stands on abortion and won't introduce anti-abortion legislation in the short term.

The poster could have avoided this apparent racism by using the header Jack Layton apes Tony Clement.

"It's no state secret. Stephen Harper's ambition is to see the Tories eventually dethrone the Liberals as Canada's natural governing party. And the strategy for it comes courtesy of Tom Flanagan, his top adviser. And this is where we get to Harper's ultimate prize: a context ripe enough for him to try to turn conservatism into Canada's dominant public philosophy - something Flanagan lamented last year wasn't "yet" the case. That's why, he wrote, it's important for the Tories to tame voters with "small conservative reforms" before they can be powerful enough to get to the big ones. Note the word "yet." Scary? No kidding. While it's too soon to say whether Flanagan's scenario will unfold as such, at this moment his musings aren't that improbable. Stéphane Dion's leadership woes are real enough. So are his party's wobbly finances and the divisive ambitions of Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. So is the possibility that the Greens, the NDP and the Bloc could end up further splitting the non-conservative vote. The real poll, as they say, is the one on election night. But if final results confirm this tendency, Harper and Flanagan will be one happy ideologically-driven tag team. And quite a team they make. Flanagan, a U.S.-born professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has been Harper's closest adviser since the days of the Reform Party. Tory insider Ezra Levant describes the two men as "symbiotic partners" and Flanagan as the "master strategist, the godfather, even - of Harper." Levant says he even calls him "Don Tomaso." Flanagan is also one of the creators of the School of Calgary - perhaps Canada's top group of neo-con thinkers. ...if Harper keeps pulling off his grand seduction of Quebec nationalists, though he used to abhor them, it's because he agrees with Flanagan that for electoral reasons, it's best to appease them... Strangely for someone who shares Harper's distrust of the media, Flanagan is so confident in his own brilliance and Dion's ineptitude that he has taken to detailing his strategies on a regular basis on the Globe and Mail's op-ed page." http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/feat...d2f4409&p=1 There's no question that Flanagan is a brilliant strategist. If he was able to propel a socially conservative, big spender into a majority government while convincing Canadians that Harper's a fiscal conservative and social moderate, the man's a genius. Dion needs a Flanagan. If Flanagan could convince Canadians that Harper has the same values as most Canadians, he could do this with anyone.

Perhaps he has principles. Some Evangelical Christians do.

And no doubt Canada's strategic interests are a high priority for them at this crucial time of trying to convince Americans to vote for them.

September 4, 2008 OTTAWA — A new poll suggests a majority of Canadians believe the country is paying too high a price in blood and treasure for its involvement in Afghanistan. The survey found that 61 per cent of respondents believed the cost of the country's mission in lives and money has been unacceptable, while only one in three - 32 per cent - said it was acceptable. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...61vK5BuGhMEJpZA Sure sounds like opposition to me.

Because he didn't and does not yet have a majority. The six months for one marijuana plant legislation is embedded in omnibus crime legislation which includes tougher sentences for violent crime and gun-related crime. Most Canadians, myself included, support tougher sentences for violent crime and gun-related crime.