normanchateau

What a contrast with how Stephen Harper deals with a situation. When Harper found an extremist who compared Canada to Nazi Germany for passing legislation making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of lesbians, he made Darrel Reid Chief of Staff to the Minister of the Environment. Yet Harper must have known that Reid was the Canadian leader of Focus on the Family, a group which believes global warming is a myth perpetuated by "environmental liberals and radicals."

You're merely expanding upon the same point that was made in the initial post in this thread. Harper and Clinton agree on this point. So do Harper and Bush. So do Bush and Clinton, and probably most Americans as well. But a majority of Canadians no longer support the mission and even among those who do support the mission, a majority of those support it only "somewhat" rather than strongly. Unless the Liberals harm themselves by selecting Ignatieff as leader, this will be a powerful election issue with only the Cons supporting it and the Liberals, NDP, BQ and Green Party opposed.

Contrary opinions: http://anewerworld.org/?p=40 http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archiv...is-afghanistan/ http://www.breakingranks.net/weblog/archives/128 Theocracy: a government ruled by OR subject to religious authority. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the latter.

I can think of far worse names for Mr. Harper but was under the impression that this was not permitted on the discussion board. Mr. Harper, oddly, had no problem tolerating the remarkably unsavoury Gurmant Grewal who apparently was far more acceptable to the Cons than Garth Turner.

Now we know why Harper and the Cons tolerated Gurmant Grewal. He played by the Conservative rule book and didn't make waves.

Never mind "might be". I think he's definitely more socially conservative than Clinton!

No doubt about it. The situation in Afghanistan isn't nearly as bad as the quagmire in Iraq...yet.

I believe he announced yesterday that he will run as an Independent, not a Green, in the next election. It'll be interesting to see if he splits the right wing vote allowing a Liberal victory or if he wins running as an Independent. Either way, it's probably a lost seat for the Conservatives. Turner maintains his integrity by not becoming a Green MP and further reinforces the hypocricy of so-con Harper and the other Cons who condemned the Stronach floor crossing while touting the virtues, morals and wisdom of the Emerson floor crossing.

Sigh, I'm outa here...for today.

We could debate that issue forever. What matters to me is that Harper has positioned himself within the socially conservative wing of the Conservatives. That puts him outside of mainstream Canada in my opinion. I can easily relate to the fiscal conservatives but not the social conservatives within the Conservatives. I think that describes the majority of Canadians.

Thank you southerncomfort. That's the kindest thing you've ever said about me since we both joined this site on November 28, 2005. I feel honoured that you followed me to this site. I'm not worthy. Your welcome LOL but I think you followed me here I'm kinda surprised your not posting on Rabble you'd get less opposition. If you look in the left hand column you'll see that I'm member 1353 and you're member 1357, suggesting you followed me. I've never even visited Rabble but I gather I'd not receive much opposition there. That would be no fun at all.

I'm the poster so I can confirm that this is indeed what I meant. Yes, there are security concerns but I suspect there might be other motives as well. That's all I was implying. I wish everyone would lighten up a bit so that we could exchange arguments without getting personal and stressed.

It occurred to me that you especially must be smiling given that you began the "Harper is no Bush clone" thread. That's actually what inspired me to start this thread.

BTW, how do you know he wouldn't have opposed all hate speech legislation had it come up while he was an MP? I don't. But Harper never gave any indication that he opposed such legislation during the lengthy parliamentary debates when he lead the Canadian Alliance attacks on C-250.

The efforts of the German Nazis to kill homosexuals, while fairly widespread, were indeed not nearly as vigorous as their efforts to kill Jews. My hypothesis is that this reflected the relatively large number of homosexuals within the upper Nazi echelons. As you probably know, the controversy as to whether Hitler himself was a homosexual remains unresolved. I disagree with your characterization as "goofy" my complaints about Harper's opposition to C-250. Paradoxical or ironic perhaps. I continue to see Harper's opposition as discriminatory, inconsistent and socially conservative that religion, race, and ethnicity should be defended but not sexual orientation, notwithstanding the anti-homo references in religious texts.

Thank you southerncomfort. That's the kindest thing you've ever said about me since we both joined this site on November 28, 2005. I feel honoured that you followed me to this site. I'm not worthy.

So what you are saying is that Harper did not vote against a bill making the killing of homosexuals a hate crime but rather he voted against a bill making it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals. Well that certainly changes everything. I guess he's not the intolerant so-con I mistook him for. Harper, and his party voted against a very broad bill which adds homosexuals to a protected list of groups where anyone who speaks against them could be charged. This was due to a concern that religious people would be charged. After all, there are plenty of nasty anti-gay pasages in most major religious texts. And given the tendency of our Liberal judges to take the law into their own hands and "interpret" things any way their political ideology drives them, this is a valid concern. In addition to anti-gay passages, various religious texts also have rather uncharitable statements about other religions. For example, some religions don't look kindly on members of other religions or even denominations marrying in their church. And more alarmingly, the Koran doesn't look kindly on those who convert from Islam to another religion. If I'm not mistaken, the Koran suggests the death penalty. Therefore, if we are sincerely opposed to sexual orientation being on the hate speech list, shouldn't we also be opposed to religion being on the hate crime list in the interests of free speech? I see no real need for any hate speech laws but if we're forced to have them, I would not want to exclude sexual orientation any more than I'd exclude race. I could be mistaken but I do recall hearing of some racist passages in more than one religious text.

Actually I just started a thread on "Harper=Clinton." Got the idea from some 22-year old musicians.

Then what about the "House of Commons multi-party defence committee and the Senate multi-party national security committee" referred to above? Why are they blocked? Because they had no business there. Harper, Mckay and O'Conner were there to support the troops, and to meet with government officials. I don't think a bunch of MPs or Senators are going to bump up the troops' morale, and I doubt the government has any need to have these people discussing issues with the Afghanistan government when they're in no position to make deals or impliment anything. The House of Commons defence committee has no business there? They think otherwise. That's why they've asked to go but perhaps you think they just want a free Kandahar vacation.

I was being facetious. This is a political forum, not comedy hour. Unless there is a forum rule or guideline precluding being facetious, I will do so when I choose. I didn't say you couldn't be facetious. A strong argument could be made that this topic is in violation of the "POSTING CONTENT" rule section. It was an "attempt to stimulate discussion" within the "Posting Content" rules.

Seems like a reasonable assumption given that there aren't enough NDP/BQ voters to account for the numbers opposed. The November, 2006, Ipsos-Reid numbers for support of or opposition to the Canadian mission are: 21% strongly support 23% somewhat support 17% somewhat oppose 37% strongly oppose 2% don't know It's interesting to note that even among the 44% who support the mission, most don't support it strongly. And with only 21% of all Canadians strongly in support, there are significant numbers of Conservative supporters who are at best lukewarm on the mission.

I was being facetious. This is a political forum, not comedy hour. Unless there is a forum rule or guideline precluding being facetious, I will do so when I choose.

I was being facetious.

I'd rather have a leader whose vision, values and respect for civil liberties are in tune with those of most Canadians than be governed by a left wingnut or socon.

On Nov. 9, 2006, former United States President Bill Clinton discussed Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, saying, "If we lose in Afghanistan and the Taliban come back, it will not only be a nightmare for the Afghan people, but it will create greater options of movement for the al-Qaeda leadership and increase the likelihood that they will be able to mount and conduct more global terrorist operations."