normanchateau

I'd say non-interest, and who knows how this remark about Stronach could hurt him. I think maybe Jim Prentice, Jim Flahrety [not sure if I spelt the name right], Tony Clement, maybe Danny Williams, and Rona Ambrose, would run. I like Prentice, he's a social moderate, and I think he could do alot of good for the country. Somehow I know this will come back to haunt me but...I also think Jim Prentice would be a good choice.

I don't doubt for a moment that there are others even more socially conservative. Here's one definition: A social conservative believes in "traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society, often through civil law or regulation. Social change is generally regarded as suspect, while social values based on tradition are generally regarded as tried, tested and true. It is a view commonly associated with conservative religious groups, militarism and nationalism."

I see. So even though he was discharged from the military, he was not a soldier. "In reality he believed that the mission in Afghanistan was ill-conceived, that political dialogue and not military might is the quickest path to stability in that country. But you can't say to the military, 'I don't believe in the mission in Afghanistan and I don't believe in war-making,' he said. You can't do that. The military doesn't speak that language. He was brought before the head of the infantry school the next day and told that he would regret the move for the rest of his life, that he would forever be a failure. Juarez kept on with the course for a few more days. Back in Victoria, B.C., his wife spoke to his reserve unit and they asked to see another memo. That's when he was marched before a series of captains for a barrage of one-on-one interviews in Gagetown. Buck up, is how Juarez describes their message. The only way you're getting out of this course is by signing the end-of-course report. They were wrong. He ended it that same week around 5 a.m. before setting foot on the obstacle course, when he refused to participate. He was read his rights an hour later, charged the next day, and discharged from the military over the summer."

My favourite Conservative Cabinet Minister! Here she is in a good-natured scene with Rick Mercer:

Nothing has really changed except who's in power. When the Liberals were in power, Conservative and NDP supporters were perpetually outraged. Now it's Liberal and NDP supporters who are outraged. I'm guessing after the next election, we'll again see Conservative and NDP outrage. Normie, Normie...you are jumping the gun. You don't have a leader. Do you really want "Bail out Bob" runing the country...I think not.... I know I don't want so-con Harper running the country but I'd have no problem with a Conservative who's not a so-con. With the right fiscal conservative who's not a so-con, the Conservatives could easily win a majority.

Wrong again CB. "Canadian Soldier Describes Why He Abandoned Military Over Afghan Mission" Source: http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/2328

So you're suggesting that Harper's opposition to decriminalization was solely to please the US and that now he'll change his position? Then I suppose the other reasons why the Harper government opposes decriminalization are simply false, e.g., "Decriminalization of Marijuana A Conservative government will not reintroduce the Liberal plan to decriminalize the possession of marijuana, and we will never endorse the NDP idea of legalizing it outright. I don't think it's a coincidence that we have seen a rapid expansion of the drug trade since this government first tabled its marijuana decriminalization legislation. It sent a signal to society, to police officers and to the drug industry that they were simply not serious about enforcing drug laws. Some people want to deal with the problem by simply surrendering. A Conservative government would not only make marijuana illegal, but will institute truth in sentencing in order to see drug offenders in prisons or rehabilitation centers." Source: http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/001129.html

Once again, for I don't know around the 20th time now, maybe, we have constantly referred you to previous articles on Abdul Rahman who was not put to death. There you go again, once again twisting and turning and distorting what I said. I NEVER said that Rahman was put to death. If you think I did, go ahead and provide the evidence. What I said is that he was SENTENCED to death. Of course the sentence was not carried out. I never said it was. Rahman was exiled to Europe in order that the corrupt Karzai government could sweep this issue under the table.

Thanks CB for posting the relevant details in Section 318 and providing confirmation that Harper voted against this legislation. Even you can't deny it now.

So you still think that Harper did NOT vote against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals? So based on your last post, now you do agree that Harper voted against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Good, we both agree on this point.

Here it is: http://devin-maxwell.blogspot.com/2006/11/...s-big-deal.html

What made the income tax trust issue offensive was that the Conservatives attacked the Liberals last year for suggesting that they MIGHT tax the income trusts. And the Conservatives campaigned on NOT taxing the trusts. And it didn't help the Conservatives that in February they appointed Fortier, an unelected Quebecer who was Harper's campaign manager to the Senate as well as to a cabinet position. This from a party that promoted accountability...

Nothing has really changed except who's in power. When the Liberals were in power, Conservative and NDP supporters were perpetually outraged. Now it's Liberal and NDP supporters who are outraged. I'm guessing after the next election, we'll again see Conservative and NDP outrage.

Maintaining morale requires that attitude. I'd be surprised if soldiers trying to do their job would want to maintain a negative attitude. No offense intended CB but it is conceivable that the German soldiers marching to Stalingrad might have had a positive attitude...at least initially.

Or to paraphrase what you've just said... Trust me. I wonder how you felt in March, 2003, when Harper was saying Canada should join the US invasion of Iraq.

Indeed a higher percentage of Quebecers voted Conservative than Liberal in the January, 2006 election. Guess what the polls reading would be like if you excluded Quebec... Guess what the polls reading would be if you excluded Alberta...

And I love watching someone twist and turn to support a mission to defend a corrupt government whose human rights legislation is secondary to the laws of Islam. And now the eloquent Gordon O'Connor is travelling across Canada trying to persuade sceptical Canadians of the wisdom of this mission. Fat chance.

Indeed a higher percentage of Quebecers voted Conservative than Liberal in the January, 2006 election.

So you still think that Harper did NOT vote against legislation making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals? Or do you think repeatedly denying that he voted this way will eventually convince someone that he did not vote against the legislation? Or do you think that using words like ignorance adds credence to your denials?

Because he couldn't win or because he's not interested in the job?

I think Harper stopped pretending that he was different from other politicians in February, 2006, when he offered to make David Emerson a Cabinet Minister if he switched parties and appointed an unelected Quebecer who had been his personal campaign manager to the Senate then made him a Cabinet Minister.

It was the Bush administration which threatened Canada in this respect. There is now a Democratic majority in the House and Senate which may take a different attitude: "NORML's St. Pierre said that the strong showing in local [November, 2006] races demonstrates Americans' overwhelming support for more responsible pot policies. "What these results tell us is that citizens strongly support reforming America's marijuana laws, but that they prefer to do so incrementally," he said. "These successes on the municipal level, once again, affirm that a majority of US citizens don't want adults who use marijuana responsibly to face arrest or jail, and they do not want their tax dollars spent on policies that prioritize targeting and prosecuting marijuana offenders." St. Pierre added that this year's election results also have potential federal ramifications, noting that California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who now stands to be House Speaker, is a longtime supporter and former co-sponsor of medical marijuana legislation. "It is our hope that with new Democratic leadership in the US House of Representatives we will finally be able to move forward with legislation and hearings on both the physician-approved medical use of marijuana as well as the decriminalization of cannabis for responsible adults," he said." In November, 2006, a number of initiatives relating to marijuana possession passed in various US states including Arkansas: "In Eureka Springs, Arkansas, 64 percent of voters approved a citywide ordinance directing local law enforcement to issue a summons in lieu of a criminal arrest for adults found to be in possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and/or marijuana paraphernalia. The measure, sponsored by the Fayetteville/University of Arkansas chapter of NORML, is the first pot 'depenalization' measure ever approved in the state. In California, local voters approved a trio of pot 'deprioritization' measures. In Santa Barbara, 65 percent of voters backed Measure P, which directs municipal police to make all law enforcement activities related to the investigation, citation, and/or arrest of adult cannabis users their lowest priority, and also appoints a community oversight committee to monitor police activity as it pertains to marijuana law enforcement. Santa Cruz and Santa Monica voters approved similar measures (Measure K and Measure Y) each by votes of 63 percent. A separate pot deprioritization measure (Initiative 2) also passed in Missoula, Montana, with 53 percent of the vote. Finally, in Massachusetts, voters in several House and Senate Districts approved public policy questions concerning the decriminalization of cannabis for personal use and the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. Since 2002, more than 420,000 Massachusetts voters in 110 communities have approved similar non-binding resolutions." http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7084 Harper's position is so-con even by the standards of Eureka Springs, Arkansas.

So would any sane person. But Harper is the only leader of an elected Canadian political party who believes that a criminal record and potential jail sentence is an appropriate punishment for youthful possession of a few grams of marijuana. That criminal record is permanent and no help in obtaining future employment. This is so-con Harper's position and is out of tune with the view of most Canadians. Yet some rabid Harper supporters claim he's a libertarian. ...and anyone busted for pot SHOULD have a criminal record that follows them for the rest of their life. The law says it's illegal, so if you break the law you should go to jail and get a criminal record. Well then you and Harper are in complete agreement and you should definitely vote for him. You speak eloquently for the so-con position. However, most Canadians are not so-cons. 69% of the Canadian population believe that marijuana should be decriminalized. The Liberals, NDP and BQ agree. The Greens want outright legalization.

That is YOUR interpretation on what he said. That is not, however, what he actually said. What I'm reading in what he said is that, like always, we'll wind up going along with everyone else in the end (with the Liberals in power), and do so as nobodies at the back of the pack rather than taking a principaled stand, preparing for what is to come, and taking actual part in discussions, negotiations as part of the leadership of the group. We'll shirk as long as we can, paying close attention to polls, and go along, in the end, because we must. And we would have, too, if the rest of our NATO allies had agreed. Just as we did during the first gulf war. As it happened, since nobody else but the British went, Chretien wound up saying no. But if the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, etc., had gone in with the Americans, we WOULD have gone too. And here's Harper and Day in a letter to the Wall Street Journal on March 28, 2003: "Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations. This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need." Sure sounds like Harper is opposed to Canada's participation, right?

"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade." - Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003. "On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country." - Stephen Harper, letter to the Washington Times, December 11, 2005 The full story appears here including the Hansard link and Harper's appearance on Fox News to endorse the Iraq war on behalf of the "silent majority" of Canadians. http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~dastow/harper.html Harper's utter and complete flipflop on Iraq is commendable and most Canadians have probably already forgotten his unbridled enthusiasm for Canadian troops invading Iraq. Now that the evidence is in that a majority of Canadians oppose the combat mission in Afghanistan, the countdown for his flipflop on Afghanistan has begun.