normanchateau

What about Canada's first nations people? Should Harper apologize to them? They were subjugated, put on reserves, and forbidden by law from singing their songs or performing their dances. They were not allowed to vote. Their children were taken from their homes and sent to residential schools to be "civilized and Christianized."

Then don't respond. Then quit diverting threads Then ignore my responses.

Then don't respond.

We agree.

And of course if you had evidence that my statement was false, you'd fail to produce it.

Would you call opposing embryonic stem cell research evidence of social conservatism? Is that something on his hidden agenda? Got a quote? Who said anything about a hidden agenda? My question was straightforward.

Would you call opposing embryonic stem cell research evidence of social conservatism?

These next two questions have absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes. Should Harper now apologize for the fact that homosexual behaviour was a criminal offence subject to incarceration prior to 1967? Why does that not deserve an apology whereas Sikhs of today deserve an apology because illegal Sikh immigrants were denied entry to Canada in 1914?

If the separatist Bloc had failed to prop up the Harper Conservatives on the budget vote, we'd be able to test your hypothesis.

What exactly is not true in my statement "that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"? Here are some simple questions which I suspect you'll deflect or ignore: (1) Did Bill C-250 in 2003 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals? (2) Did Stephen Harper vote against that bill? Pointing out whether your statement is true or not is completely beside the point; it's your attempt to imply that Harper is against "homosexuals" (whatever those are) that is the focus. Harper may well have voted against the bill in question, but, and here's the crux of the matter, you have no idea why. But, of course, that doesn't stop you; you fill in the void with your own take on Harper's opinions and then treat it as fact. Fortunately, most other people here don't seem to buy it. This appears to be your long-winded way of acknowledging that my statement is factual. The previous poster was apparently incapable of this and instead resorted to terms like "garbage' and "pap" and "nonsense" in order to deflect the actual evidence. So should Harper now apologize for the fact that homosexual behaviour was a criminal offence subject to incarceration prior to 1967? Why does that not deserve an apology whereas Sikhs of today deserve an apology because illegal Sikh immigrants were denied entry to Canada in 1914?

That's what Harper has accomplished in 13 months (that's months not 13 years) There were other accomplishments which preceded that. On July 1, 2006, Harper raised our personal income tax rate. That was after barely 13 weeks in office.

There's a huge difference between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. I suspect most Canadians are fiscal conservatives but are not social conservatives. What do CTB and GST cuts have to do with social conservatism? In any event, the Conservative Finance Minister in 2006 and again in 2007 was the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada. So the current government is hardly fiscally conservative. Even conservative columnists acknowledge this: http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php On July 1, 2006, the personal income tax rate of ALL Canadians was increased by the Harper government. That's not fiscal conservatism either. So Canada is saddled with a Conservative Prime Minister Harper whose free spending ways are hardly those of a fiscal conservative yet he remains a social conservative in many respects.

The only one? Why do you suppose the Premier of British Columbia complained in March, 2007, about the new equalization formula which penalizes all British Columbians for their high property values? http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html Then again, without screwing British Columbia and Saskatchewan, how would Harper come up with bushels of money for Quebec? No wonder the Bloc supported the budget and continues to prop up the Conservatives. Was it Harper who coined the phrase The West Wants In? He sure delivered...to Quebec.

I'd give my life for my wife or children without hesitation. Assuming that you had a wife or children, wouldn't you?

I think Harper is well on his way to defeat. Of course you do. And dithering Dion is the man to do it! I think in a match between Dion and the flipflopping Harper who has yet to flipflop on his social conservatism, Canadians won't pick the social conservative a second time.

I was not going to dignify your garbage with another response but after doing a search I find you are simply regurgitating your pap from other threads which thoroughly debunked your nonsense. You just copy and paste your smears into as many threads as you can to divert the topic Nice try . Interesting that you failed to produce a shred of evidence to debunk my point. Instead you referred to the facts I presented as "garbage", "pap", "nonsense" and "smears". What exactly is not true in my statement "that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals"? Here are some simple questions which I suspect you'll deflect or ignore: (1) Did Bill C-250 in 2003 make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals? (2) Did Stephen Harper vote against that bill?

Vancouver Sun From an Editorial Published: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 "The federal government has taken a welcome step towards cleaning up the mess at passport offices, but for the thousands of Canadians who spent hours standing in Soviet-style line-ups, the measures, sensible though they are, have come too late. The Conservative government also failed to adopt the simple measure that would have reduced by half the workload of Passport Canada and added five years to the dreaded day when the Canadians who endured those lines would have to go back again. More than a year has passed since Public Security Minister Stockwell Day first announced the government was considering moving to a 10-year passport and taking other measures to deal with the bulge in applications it knew was coming as a result of the new U.S. border requirements. Months passed, the line-ups grew and nothing, other than feeble excuses, came forth from the government." The Federal Government spent more than a year "considering" how to deal with the new U.S. requirements? They finally announced solutions after the line-ups in Vancouver disappeared. How will the Harper incompetents deal with a natural disaster or terrorist attack which they're not warned about more than a year in advance?

I think Harper is well on his way to defeat. He remains in power and his budget passed in the Commons solely because the separatist party is propping him up. Once the separatists pull the plug, and they will when he stops throwing money and grovelling to Quebec, he's gone.

Far more cognitively complex are the Conservative supporter tactics when Harper's so-con record is mentioned. Tactic 1: respond "scary" "scary" "scary" Tactic 2: don't respond

Not a political bone in his body...just sheer altruism. And the billions he handed to Quebec at the expense of other provinces in the last budget? It was to save us from the spectre of separatism, not to get votes in Quebec and not to get another fellow altruist, Gilles Duceppe, to vote for the budget.

An amusing deflection from you and a huge pile of doo doo, this type of villification does not deserve the dignaty of a rebuttal. It is indeed difficult if not undignified to rebut the fact that in 2003, Stephen Harper voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Here's the legislation he voted against: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250

Why would the Conservatives keep him if he does no better than another minority?

It might even piss off a Conservative MP who "criticized Harper's decision to appoint Michael Fortier - who did not run for a seat in parliament - to the Senate and his cabinet": http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...c6-a20034397584 But then again, Harper knows how to deal with Conservative MPs who criticize him.

Just like the 4.8 billion dollar handout that Harper promised Quebec came from Quebec's brothers and sisters: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html

I think we did do our homework. When Chretien committed forces to Afghanistan, the depth of the corruptness of the Karzai government was not evident. Now it's obvious that the government is or at least has become a corrupt coalition of warlords, "former" Taliban, drug dealers, human rights abusers and religious fundamentalists. The corruptness of the government unfortunately plays into the hands of the Taliban.