normanchateau

That's why he switched to the "Three Amigos" vest: http://abstractionreaction.com/2008/02/26/...got-any-tackle/

Because they believe in being opaque. Transparency and accountability were on the old 2006 agenda, not the 2008 agenda.

I agree completely that other Conservatives have much more moderate views. However, until those Conservatives pick a leader with similar views, they'll never get out of minority territory.

Then why was the Prime Minister so uninhibited about a Canadian citizen charged with a crime in China? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I heard he was looking to acquire a genuine sombrero to replace this hat: http://calgarygrit.blogspot.com/2005/07/gl...lgary-stop.html

The image was not especially difficult to craft given Harper's own behaviour, e.g., http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/na...esex051129.html http://mostlywater.org/six_months_jail_one...owing_marijuana Opposing even stem cell research seems just a tad socon-like: http://www.theinterim.com/2004/mar/01noclc.html

In other words, you acknowledge that Muslims are more likely to be anti-Semitic than other religious groups. Right?

I think the bad news for the Conservatives is that no matter who the Liberals run, and matter how little charisma he has, the Conservatives are still stuck with Harper. Despite Dion as Opposition Leader, Harper is now even lower in the polls than he was when elected more than two years ago. If Harper's doing so poorly against the uncharismatic Dion, how will he do against a charismatic leader?

One of the interesting aspects of this story is that there were numerous news reports that Stephen Harper called the President of Mexico to discuss Brenda Martin's plight. These reports were apparently false. It turns out that in fact the President of Mexico called Harper, and Harper has since refused to state whether he even brought up the topic of Brenda Martin: http://groups.google.com/group/can.general...f411f0?lnk=raot

Actually there are now synthetic patented cannabinoids as well and these have been shown to be effective in preventing the brain damage caused by Alzheimer's: http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/8/1904 The US and Canada have no problem with patented cannabinoids and opiates as long as they're sold by pharmaceutical companies. Yet patented cannabinoids and marijuana act on exactly the same cannabinoid receptors in the brain! Similarly, synthetic opiates and heroin act on exactly the same opiate receptors in the brain. Of course the synthetics belong to respectable multibillion dollar corporations. The natural plants, which can't be patented, do not. Why should a synthetic cannabinoid with effects like marijuana be legal and not the natural plant which produces it? This makes about as much sense as only permitting synthetic sweeteners to be sold while making sugar illegal.

The best possible situation for the Conservatives is that the Liberals keep Dion as leader and the Conservatives replace socon Harper with a middle-of-the-road leader who appeals to centrists and Quebecois as Brian Mulroney did. There's a reason why the Conservatives have not been able to capture a majority in the half century following Diefenbaker with the sole exception of Brian Mulroney.

Exactly, both right wing and left wing totalitarianism have similar policies. For example, both the Bush/Harper and Cuban drug policies are draconian. Remarkably, Harper has now stepped up his right wing authoritarianism by putting forth legislation making it mandatory for judges to impose six month sentences for a single marijuana plant. Today, more than 1 out of every 100 Americans is in jail, largely for drug offenses. The per capita incarceration rate in the US is the highest in the world, surpassing even China, Cuba and Russia: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home Despite the Greens and NDP proposing legalization of marijuana, and the Liberals introducing legislation in a previous parliament proposing decriminalization for possession of small quantities, socon Harper is satisfied with young people having lifetime criminal records and potential jail time for possession. Does Harper seriously believe that Bush and Castro should be our role models on how to deal with marijuana possession?

And therefore the Conservatives obviously do care about Canada because they don't care about getting elected. If they did care, they'd dump Harper and pick a leader who could actually win a majority by appealing to centrist voters.

Purging other socon candidates is an attempt at getting a majority government in the next election. It's not evidence that Harper is not a socon. Purging socon candidates is a safe strategy for Harper. Who else will the socons vote for? Other than the Christian Heritage Party and various lunatic groups, there is no Canadian political party to the right of the Harper Conservatives. Even in the last federal election when socon Harper won a tenuous minority, approximately 64% of Canadians voted for the Liberals, BQ, NDP and Greens, parties not noted for their appeal to socons.

Here's some evidence to support your statement: http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?cat=15 It appears that Harper intends to veto any socon Conservative candidate other than himself.

Sounds like Harper does not agree with his own statement or he'd be rejecting Lord's recommendations on bilingualism. I predict he'll spend billions implementing them. It's called vote buying which apparently is good when Conservatives do it but bad when Liberals do it.

Sounds like Conservatives agree that increased immigration is a good idea when the Conservatives do it because they'll pick good immigrants and a bad idea when the Liberals do it because they'll pick bad immigrants.

And the proof is...?

The cons meet many of the criteria for authoritarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

The question is "Is he a social conservative?" and I say yes. Re-visiting SSM as Prime Minister after mounting a strong opposition to SSM as Opposition Leader, and speaking at anti-SSM rallies, is part of a social conservative agenda. The fact that he has failed so far in that agenda is because he doesn't have the numbers in parliament. It's not because he now rejects those anti-SSM views.

He thought it was unnecessary because he's a social conservative.

By whose definition of sexual orientation? Stephen Harper's? I must admit that I am amused to hear that Harper voted against C-250 because he didn't know what sexual orientation is. No doubt if he had known what sexual orientation is, he would have voted for C-250. Right?

But you do know for sure that Stephen Harper doesn't have a socially conservative bone in his body, right? And that's because he's what? A separatist? A libertarian? A liberal?

So Stephen Harper is not a social conservative, he's a separatist.

Now I get. Increased immigration is a good idea when the Conservatives do it because they'll pick good immigrants.