normanchateau

He made a promise not to revisit income trusts but he did and its done. At the time, he claimed that it was in the best interests of Canada even though it meant breaking his promise. Was it in the best interests of Canada to keep his promise to try to take away a lesbian's right to marry. Which promise was more stupid?

It depends on the criterion. If the criterion is the largest increase in government spending in the history of Canada and squandering the multibillion dollar surplus while convincing his gullible supporters that he's actually a fiscal conservative who's only pretending to be a big spender in order to win a majority, Harper's the man: http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

No one is claiming that the Conservatives have a monopoly on stupid comments or homophobia. However, the House of Commons would be better off without those who've acknowledged bigotry. We can't protect ourselves against those who cleverly conceal their bigotry but the others are fair game.

Then why did Harper think in December, 2006, that "re-visiting" the issue of same-sex marriage was an important use of his time? Were Canadians in turmoil because lesbians could marry? Is lowering the flag to honour Canadian heroes less important to Harper than removing a lesbian's legally bestowed right to marry?

It depends on how you define "we". Some Canadians aren't proud of a PM who would impose mandatory six month jail sentences for one marijuana plant. A majority of Canadians favour legalization yet Harper has moved to criminalize further: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300 Some Canadians aren't proud of a PM who would attempt to take away their legal right to marry under the guise of re-visiting the definition of traditional marriage. Some Canadians aren't proud of a PM who has acknowledged on tape that financial considerations were offered to a dying MP in an unsuccessful attempt to change his vote. Some Canadians aren't proud of a PM who has increased government spending by more than any PM in the history of Canada. Some Canadians aren't proud of a PM who has squandered a multibillion dollar surplus on handouts to Quebec while failing to lower income tax rates.

Did Bill C-250 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of gays and lesbians? Yes or No? Did Harper vote against Bill C-250? Yes or No?

In other words, he was a hypocrite in his bogus and insincere apology to Robinson. Why was Larry Spencer's equally insincere apology not sufficient. Harper fired Spencer.

Larry Spencer apologized for his homophobic comment in 2003 but that wasn't good enough for Opposition Leader Harper. Spencer was fired. Why did Harper view homophobic comments as unacceptable then, even after an apology, but not now? Did he so desperately want to become Prime Minister that he viewed Larry Spencer as a stumbling block, or does he no longer view homophobic comments as unacceptable?

Here's Harper nevetheless apologizing: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/10/23/...act_021023.html

I'm sure there are homophobic people who aren't social conservatives. I never said that homophobia was exclusive to social conservatives. Would you say that Harper, since he made a homophobic comment in Parliament, is no more homophobic than any other MP in Parliament? Or would you say that's he's just more honest in expressing his feelings.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/10/23/...act_021023.html A homophobic individual would probably not see the comment as homophobic. That Harper subsequently apologized suggests he acknowledged that it was. Alternatively, his apology was bogus and insincere.

Thanks for reminding me that was the turning point. I wonder why the Conservatives haven't called an inquiry into finding out why the RCMP investigated Goodale and whether the RCMP initiated or was asked to do so.

I agree that everyone has biases. Would you say that Harper, since he made a homophobic comment in Parliament, is no more homophobic than any other MP in Parliament? Or would you say that's he's just more honest in expressing his feelings? How about social conservatives? Would you say that they are more biased against homosexuals?

"So we continue to protest this at every level, up to and including my own (recent) meeting with the president (of China). We will continue to vocalize these concerns." Stephen Harper in February, 2007 on the apprehension of an alleged Muslim terrorist who is a dual citizen of both China and Canada.

Why does Tom need to step down for homophobic comments he made 16 years and Stephen does not need to step down for homophobic comments he made 6 years ago?

So do you think that Harper's own homophobic comments 6 years ago and Lukiwski's 16 years ago will be a vote getter in the next election given the homophobia prevalence rate? Should the Conservatives campaign next time on a platform of overt rather than covert bigotry? It does appear that not a single Conservative supporter on this board had a problem with Harper's comments but I doubt that's why they're supporting him.

That does seem to reflect the moralistic position of Evangelicals like Stephen Harper but apparently most Canadians feel otherwise: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300

I don't think it will hurt the Conservatives. Those who are offended by such comments tend not to vote for Harper anyway. It could even boost support for Lukiwski among Conservatives. After Harper made on-the-record homophobic comments in the House of Commons, he became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Finally, a Conservative supporter who believes that Harper should step down for the homophobic comments he made in the House of Commons in 2002. That is what you're saying, right?

So why is Harper tied with Dion in most polls?

I wonder what the statute of limitations for bigotry is among Harper supporters? Harper made his homophobic comments, which he apologized for, in 2002.

I think it is time to replace both. If Dion can't rise in the polls above a socon, big-spending authoritarian-type like Harper, it's time to replace Dion.

I don't think you like my point but apparently you do agree that the National Post figures are correct.

Yes, I'm well-aware that bible thumpers support Harper's irrational fears and delusions. I gather your point is that Harper's opposition to making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of gays and lesbians is mediated by religious fears and extremism rather than homophobia. Why do you suppose the Liberals, NDP, BQ and many Progressive Conservatives, Peter MacKay included, did not have these irrational fears?

Harper apologized to Robinson for his homophobic comments: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/10/23/...act_021023.html No doubt Harper's apology was about as sincere as Lukiwski's. That the Conservatives made Harper leader AFTER he made these homophobic comments shows how seriously his party view such comments. I think in Harperland, racist comments are verboten but homophobic comments are merely "politically incorrect". Does Harper seriously believe that bigotry does not include homophobia?