normanchateau

Weren't there Liberals who also opposed these positions? Notably Paul Martin. What evidence do you have that Paul Martin opposed embryonic stem cell research and favoured criminal records for simple possession of any quantity of marijuana?

Weren't there Liberals who also opposed these positions? Of course. The question was: Are these socially conservative positions?

I agree. To the best of my knowledge, no one has attempted such legislation.

What other province has more oil and cowboy hats? Wow. What an intellectual conclusion! Wow. What a sense of humour about Alberta! I hear ridiculous comments about British Columbia frequently and just laugh them off.

In that it's out-of-control?

Exactly. If it's good enough for George.... it's good enough for me. Steve fits. Here's a piece of related trivia: Stephen Harper ran for the House of Commons as a Reform Party candidate in the 1988 federal election, appearing on the ballot as Steve Harper in Calgary West. He lost by a wide margin to the Progressive Conservative candidate. After that, he always ran as Stephen Harper.

Tell Stephen Harper. He's the one who thinks that we should apologize to Sikhs today because we barred some illegal immigrants in 1914. I think we shouldn't.

What other province has more oil and cowboy hats?

Harper would definitely not be a socially conservative, evangelical Christian in the American setting. And he isn't in reality either. The 2006 and 2007 budgets offered tax relief and huge surpluses. In Canada, not the U.S. Harper belongs to an evangelical Christian church. Do you dispute that? Harper opposes embryonic stem cell research, favours criminal records and potential jail time for simple possession of any quantity of marijuana, opposes abortion and opposes same sex marriage. Are these not socially conservative positions? "The $200-billion in program spending that Harper's Finance Minister has budgeted for this year works out to about $5,800 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Even adjusting for inflation and increases in population, that’s more than Paul Martin spent in his frantic last hours. It is more than the Mulroney government spent in its last days. It is more than the Trudeau government spent in the depths of the early 1980s recession. All of these past benchmarks of out-of-control spending must now be retired. Harper has outdone them all. He is the biggest spender in Canadian history."

Homosexual behaviour is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Similarly, having brown skin is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Can you not see the analogy? Do I need to simplify it further?

Yeah, the perfect immigrants...do their work, and then go home and shoot each other... As long as he's apologizing to numerous other immigrant groups, Harper may as well apologize to all Jamaican-Canadians. It costs nothing to apologize and might even produce a few votes.

Americans elected George Bush, a socially conservative, born-again Christian from Texas who today is unpopular with the majority of Americans. George Bush has given the US the largest national debt and the largest annual deficit in American history. Canada elected Stephen Harper, a socially conservative, evangelical Christian from Canada's own Texas, the Province of Alberta, who today is unpopular with the majority of Canadians. Stephen Harper's 2006 and 2007 budgets were the biggest spending budgets in Canadian history. Hmmm, maybe you have a point there.

Try speaking to Canadians outside of Tim Horton's. You'll find they're even smarter.

How about pro-choice and anti-choice? Or pro-abortion and anti-abortion? Lets get murder thrown in there for maximum effect...pro-murder or anti-murder. How developed does the fetus have to be for abortion to qualify as murder in your opinion? 8 months? 4 months? moment of conception?

Has any PM done differently? Paul Martin was in power for approximately as long as Stephen Harper. How much did he shovel into Quebec at the expense of other provinces? Not sure about money. That was the question.

I beg to differ. I think Stephen will cut and run on Afghanistan. It's merely a matter of when. This man has minimal loyalties to anyone but himself. He started out as a Young Liberal. Then he got disillusioned with Pierre Trudeau so switched to the Progressive Conservatives. Then he got disillusioned with Brian Mulroney so switched to the Reform Party. Then he got disillusioned with Preston Manning so quit to lead the National Citizens Coalition, a group founded by an insurance company executive who opposed the Canada Health Act (which Harper now claims to embrace after previously opposing it). Then he left that for the Canadian Alliance when it became clear that taking the leadership would require minimal effort. It's reasonable to speculate that he'll leave Afghanistan after sniffing the political winds and seeing it won't result in any votes or personal gain.

How about pro-choice and anti-choice? Or pro-abortion and anti-abortion?

Has any PM done differently? Paul Martin was in power for approximately as long as Stephen Harper. How much did he shovel into Quebec at the expense of other provinces?

This lame attempt at ridicule won't deflect attention from Harper's tactics.

If you have Canadian statistics (not subjective opinions) to back up this statement, go ahead and present them. Statistics I've seen suggest otherwise. For example: "By age, Conservatives have an advantage among older voters and the Liberals among younger voters." Source: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...a19922f&k=49795 But this is no surprise. Social conservatism is far more prevalent among old farts than among our youth. On almost any issue relating to social conservatism, e.g., same-sex marriage, decriminalization of marijuana, there is a marked and statistically significant age difference in support. One of the challenges for Stephen Harper is that some of his strongest supporters are dying.

That's your completely biased interpretation. At 9:04 am TODAY on this same thread I provided a link: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html That link, had you read it, made it clear that the money was promised over two years. It's always a good idea to do your homework before making allegations.

He's already done it to British Columbia by changing our equalization formula so that BC ends up paying for some of next year's handouts to Quebec: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html

Will the Tories ever get this issue right? Unlikely. The Minister of Defence actually makes Stephen Harper appear competent. Maybe that's why he hasn't been fired yet.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives played into the hands of the separatists and claimed it did exist. Now the rest of Canada is on the hook for 4.8 billion dollars to Quebec, the price the other provinces must pay for the Bloc to prop up the fiscally irresponsible and incompetent Harper government.

Which accusation is false? Harper voted against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. Here are your words: "In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals." This is like saying the Liberal Party voted against giving any more assistance to natives since they voted against the budget. The Liberal Party hates natives. So you no longer deny that "In 2003, Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"?