normanchateau

Campaign or not, here's a list of the 40 Conservative MPs who voted to prohibit floor-crossing on November, 23, 2005: http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=241

It remains to be seen what Rare will do but Harper already raised our taxes. On July 1st, 2006, the personal income tax rate on those who earned the least was raised from 15% to 15.5%.

Most average Canadian's aren't a part of a special interest group Norman. So lets wait till the next election. And of course so-cons and militarists aren't special interest groups.

That's my take on it. For example, while most Canadians know that Harper opposed same sex marriage, the media have done a dismal job in informing Canadians that he also voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Sure, the political junkies on this board have heard it multiple times but I suspect very few Canadians are aware of it or even aware that he was appeasing religious extremists when he voted as he did.

Current position as nitwit? Or current position as Minister of Public Safety?

Most average Canadian's aren't a part of a special interest group Norman. So lets wait till the next election. One knows that the Conservatives are in deep trouble when even the 170,000 member Canadian Chamber of Commerce is dismissed as a special interest group by their supporters.

Yes, far better to be governed by those "sincere" Conservatives. Not a hypocrite in the bunch...

We all know you love Harper, give it a rest.

Paul Martin was bashed, Jean Chretien was bashed, and when the next Liberal leader becomes Prime Minister, he'll be bashed by the Harper supporters on this board. It's to be expected when one is Prime Minister. Harper was unusual in having no honeymoon period with most voters but he needs to take responsibility for his actions. He engineered his own demise by claiming that his government would be more accountable, then days after being elected, he appointed to the Senate then made Cabinet Minister an unelected Quebecer who had been his campaign manager. Simultaneosly he engineered what is probably the hastiest floor crossing in Canadian history by making David Emerson a Cabinet Minister. The floor crossing and the Senate appointment would have been no big deal were it not for how the Conservatives a year ago had responded to Liberal Senate appointments and Stronach's floor crossing to the Liberals. Same with the broken promise on income trusts.

Nancy Hughes Thomas is President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce representing more than 170,000 Canadian businesses. Here's what she thinks of Harper's performance on China: - The Harper government has put in a poor performance on the international trade front and must make it a ''priority,'' the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said Thursday in Vancouver. "Like it or not, trade is absolutely vital to Canada and there are major concerns about the current situation." Anthony said. "Canada needs the same sort of presence in China that the U.S., Australia and other global competitors have." she said. Source: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...38d&k=77834 Harper had no problem supporting permanent criminal records for possession of a few grams of marijuana because he assumed those people would not vote for him. And he had no problem voting against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals because he assumed those people would not vote for him. And he had no problem abandoning Kyoto because he assumed environmentalists would not vote for him. But when he's attacked by the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, he'll soon be left with no one to vote for him except so-cons and militarists.

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence that Harper's efforts to grovel at the feet of Uncle Sam have been successful.

If polls are any indicator, the more facts Canadians learn about this mission, the greater their opposition to the mission. In my opinion, Canadians should not be dying to prop up a corrupt government filled with drug dealers, warlords, criminals and human rights violators whose constitution states that human rights cannot "be contrary to the laws of Islam."

I must have missed the reference that he is a Communist. You can call your self little boy blue, but if you associate with communists or spew communist dogma you are a communist. Monbiot was with Respect, a party that advocates communist type policy, the politics of envy and cultural marxism. Which is economic marxism translated into cultural terms. Thanks B. Max for your definition of a communist. In support of your claim that "...to associate with communists..." makes Monbiot a communist, the wikipedia link points out: "In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement." And consistent with your logic, here's the view of one Conservative MP about Nelson Mandela: "[Honouring Nelson Mendela is a] total political-correctness poster-boy thing... He was a Communist. He was a terrorist... The Liberals always deprive us unanimous consent on all sorts of provisions. They wouldn't allow us to honour the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen with regard to their wedding anniversary..." - Conservative MP Rob Anders, explaining why he voted against a resolution to make former South African president Nelson Mendela an honourary Canadian citizen, June 6th, 2001. And here is Conservative MP Rob Anders again: "I don't think that, you know, anybody would argue that if Nelson Mandela was saying, you know, 30 years ago, that you should go around with matches and necklaces and strangle people or burn them out of their homes, that is not terrorism." - Conservative MP Rob Anders after blocking a resolution to declare former South African president Nelson Mandela an honorary Canadian citizen, June 11, 2001. Anders also implied that South Africa was better off during Apartheid than it is today. And Stephen Harper's view of Conservative MP Rob Anders: "Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work." - Stephen Harper endorsing Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders.

Link I went to the link and I must say that the headline and first sentence are really quite misleading. Here's the part of the link people should focus on: "Given the margin of error, the Decima survey suggests there was little significant difference in the national appeal of the top four leadership contenders." On the actual Decima survey, Dion scored second on most questions.

I always did think he'd make a more appropriate Conservative than Liberal leader. And further so-con evidence is that while many Liberals wanted marijuana decriminalization, Paul Martin stalled and stalled and never got the legislation through even though he probably had enough Liberal, NDP and BQ votes to guarantee passage. And he was indeed dragged kicking and screaming into finally supporting ssm.

As you know, C-250 had two components, one of which lead to changes in section 318 and the other of which lead to changes in section 319. My focus has indeed been on section 318 which makes it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. If Harper actually favours the component of C-250 which lead to changes in section 318, I'd be most interested in seeing the evidence.

OK, there is validity to your argument. But to what degree should a party support the wishes of their most extreme supporters? I'm referring here to the most extreme social conservatives, not all social conservatives. Let's take marijuana decriminalization for example. In 2003, support for decriminalization was polled according to party preference. A majority of those supporting the Liberals, NDP and BQ supported decriminalization. Even among Canadian Alliance voters, 50% supported decriminalization. Stockwell Day even supported it. It would seem to me that on this issue (and I'm using it only as an example to make my point), Stephen Harper would not lose the social conservative vote if he favoured decriminalization. And the Conservatives might even win some votes from those who view them as less social conservative. I would think that only an extreme social conservative would abandon the Conservatives if they favoured decriminalization. Note that I'm not even referring to legalization, which the Greens are quietly promoting, but merely decriminalization.

I must admit I've never followed Ontario provincial politics and certainly not during the time that Rae was premier. But I gather he had a major falling out with the public labour unions and even other unions like Buzz Hargrove's Canadian Auto Workers. What did Rae do that so alienated the unions and why would federal NDP supporters now want to switch their allegiance to Rae as some Liberal supporters seem to believe?

Where else would the so-cons park their vote? Surely not the Liberals, NDP, BQ or Greens. And they're smart enough not to waste their vote on the Christian Heritage Party. I believe a Conservative leader is more likely to get elected if he's not a social conservative. Then he can pull in votes that otherwise might go Liberal. That's the key to winning a Conservative majority. However much you like Harper, his so-con aura will forever prevent him from winning a majority. In your heart of hearts, you must know that.

Fortunately a majority of Canadian MPs felt otherwise and voted for Bill C-250. That's why it is now a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. And when you say "we all believe that he should have voted against it", you forget that not all Canadians are so-cons. The legislation passed because fortunately, not all Canadians are so-cons.

In your haste to make a point, once again you didn't read very carefully. In my previous email I pointed out that I never said Afghanistan put Christians to death and asked you to provide evidence that I had. What I said was that a Christian convert had been sentenced to death. I never denied that the sentence was not carried out.

No I didn't add on the last part but so what if I had. You asked for my definition of social conservatism.

My you certainly are twisting and turning again. I stated earlier in this thread that one of the provisions of C-250 was that it made it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Harper voted against that. You agree that he voted against that and I agree that he voted against that.

There you go again twisting and turning. You claimed that I said Rahman was put to death. I never said that nor were you able to provide evidence that I said that.

Link I see Rae as Liberal leader being a bad news good news scenario. The bad news is that the Conservatives will find it easier to viciously attack him than any of the other leading Liberal contenders. The good news is that Canadians don't like US-style negative campaigns. Remember the election where attacks on Chretien's appearance turned off most Canadians and the ads were pulled.