normanchateau

He must be referring to the party that Brian Mulroney and Peter MacKay created.

Yes, it's most important that all members of the civil service be card carrying Conservatives. Better still, why not have them all be social conservatives so that Harper would know that they vote like him and think like him.

Reminds me of another interesting interaction between the Conservative Environment Minister and an employee of Environment Canada more than a year ago: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/04/13/ambrose-climate.html Harper sure knows how to pick them. O'Connor, Ambrose, Fortier...

Yes, you have been nothing but fair and reasonable in your critique of the CPC. Couldn't stomache reading your diatribes once. No way I'd subject myself to that a second time. Oh go ahead. Prove him wrong...if you can. he can't.... Correct.

But in 1951 they did vote him back in. He will always be my favourite Conservative.

Thanks for acknowledging rather than being defensive as some would be.

Not all Conservatives. My favourite Conservative of all time is Sir Winston Churchill. He appeased neither. Unfortunately, he paid the price in the 1945 election when his ungrateful citizens voted him out.

Runningdog, you joined today so you might not be familiar with the rules of this board. One such rule is no personal attacks and that's how I perceive your baiting of Argus.

Naah, the Tim Horton crowd is easily fooled. CPC need only point out that Dion drinks French wine and eats cheese not made by Kraft or Velveeta.

...anymore than he appeased Quebec or the Quebecois.

Why? (1) He wasn't a personal friend and former campaign manager of the man who appointed him. (2) The people of Alberta wanted him. Firstly, Brown wasn't elected to the Senate. In essence, all Harper did was consult Albertans on whom he should recommend the Governor General appoint to fill a Senate seat. Secondly, no Senator save for Brown was chosen in this manner. Further, senators have served in Cabinet before; hell, a couple have even been PM. Why then pick only on Fortier here? He wasn't both a personal friend and former campaign manager of the man who appointed him.

So why bother being a citizen? The good news is that Dion gallantly stated that he'd give it up if he thought that it would "keep Mr. Harper in power". http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/dion-france.html

Yes, you have been nothing but fair and reasonable in your critique of the CPC. Couldn't stomache reading your diatribes once. No way I'd subject myself to that a second time. Oh go ahead. Prove him wrong...if you can.

No and I don't believe he has either, but I guess you are. Actually I have no idea why he didn't keep his promise to reduce gasoline taxes. To the best of my knowledge, he's never explained it.

2 I am not responsible for your inability to know the difference between "hate" and contempt. ...because contempt can only be directed at those espousing left wing views whereas cognitively less complex emotions like hate are exclusive to left wingers consistently and unfairly attacking those with rational right wing views.

Not in Vancouver. Come over to the Calgary South office and apply. I have a passport but thanks for the suggestion. I'll pass it on.

Yeah, no venom directed against Paul Martin from CPC supporters. No derogatory terms like Libranos or Fiberals appeared daily. No attempts were made to tar every single member of the party for adscam. And if there ever was criticism, it was always fair, respectful and in good clean fun, not like the no-holds-barred nastiness directed at poor Stephen Harper.

Well no wonder the Liberals slashed funding to the CBC in the late 90's and no wonder the NDP protested those cuts. "Phased in over the next 18 months, the cutbacks will bring to $414 million the total CBC budget reductions, which were first imposed by the Liberal government in 1994. The cuts will affect every aspect of the national broadcaster, whose current budget, including ad revenues and parliamentary disbursements, totals about $1.4 billion and includes 9,000 employees. English-language CBC Radio will lose one in three staff positions - about 500 jobs - and budget cuts will total $34 million. Program budgets for CBC Radio will drop by 28 per cent. No regional stations will close (over half the division's budget will still be spent on those stations), but their spending will be decreased according to market size. A number of programs will be cancelled. French-language radio's budget, meanwhile, will drop by $20 million, to $62 million, with 238 jobs eliminated from the existing 952, and French-language stations in Vancouver, Regina and Edmonton will be downgraded to bureaus of the main network. The French television wing will see a budget decrease of $70 million, with staff reductions of 304 employees, or 30 per cent." http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0011002

I wonder if the vocal Harper-lovers are exhibiting any discernable patterns or is their behaviour merely random?

The invasion of Iraq is the continuation of the war on terror. What evidence do you have for this novel idea? Bin Laden loathed Saddam Hussein and labelled him an "infidel" for his secular government.

He needs to fool immigrants. I believe some of his MPs are immigrants so it's not an impossible task.

You now blame Stephen Harper for bilingualism? And being anti-French? Neither. I blame him for hypocrisy. It's not hypocrisy. You once again have your terms confused. Harper's abrupt switch is not hypocrisy, it's simple, political expediency. Does he really believe in the Official Languages Act as presently constituted? I rather doubt it. Is he being dishonest about it? It is indeed political expediency, notwithstanding the hypocrisy. The two terms, of course, are not mutually exclusive. Or in your obvious confusion, do you think they are?

You now blame Stephen Harper for bilingualism? And being anti-French? Neither. I blame him for hypocrisy. It's not hypocrisy. You once again have your terms confused. Hypocrisy is when, behind the closed doors of a cabinet meeting, you oppose any measures to meet the Kyoto agreement your government has signed, then you go out into the lights and name your dog Kyoto and tell everyone how important it is for the country." Harper's abrupt switch is not hypocrisy, it's simple, political expediency. Does he really believe in the Official Languages Act as presently constituted? I rather doubt it. Is he being dishonest about it? Yup. So what? Voters have never punished a politician, much less a government for lying yet.

Yes wouldn't it be nice if all people were perfect? Unfortunately it would be impractical for governments to make planning decisions based on that assumption.

So which gouging do you prefer? Government picking your pocket for tax revenue protects the environment. Companies picking your pocket for profit doesn't. Are you saying that Harper didn't keep his promise to reduce gasoline taxes in order to protect the environment?