normanchateau

Prior to the threat of Harper being toppled in December, Harper and Flaherty had no economic stimulus plan, only an economic update even though Harper knew we were in a recession. Harper delivered a budget with a stimulus plan in January. I suspect that Ignatieff had something to do with Harper's complete reversal. Ignatieff's not a social conservative like Harper. I'd be shocked if Ignatieff ever tried to foist censorship on Canadian television and film as Harper unsuccessfully attempted: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...ticle714705.ece And do you think that Ignatieff would ever have voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals? Harper did. The legislation passed with the support of the Liberals, NDP and BQ. Having said that, I would agree that Ignatieff needs to do more to distinguish himself on the domestic agenda.

No doubt to make sure that the offensive statement is put in context, he will eventually release the full speech once the "media hounds" lose interest in the story. Riiiiight.

Personally I think it's about time that the Liberals came out with attack ads which accurately describe Harper's history. How many Canadians remember that Harper lead the charge against lesbians marrying before he was elected? How many Canadians remember that even after he was elected Prime Minister, he attempted to take away their right to marry by "revisiting" the issue in Parliament? How many remember that he voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals? How many remember that he spent almost no time in the work force except as a professional politician? How many Canadians know that Harper is nothing more than a professional politician who jumped from the Liberals to the Progressive Conservatives to the Reform Party, who suddenly underwent a religious conversion to become a member of Preston Manning's evangelical church, then joined the extremist Northern Foundation then quit the foundation when he claimed it had extremist members, then had a falling out with Preston Manning and quit the Reform Party and jumped to the National Citizens Coalition, then joined the Alliance Party, then had a falling out with Tom Flanagan, his longtime mentor? How many Canadians remember that Manning fired Harper as Finance Critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a financial conservative with a PhD in Economics?

On foreign and military policy, I don't see much difference between the two. If they do differ significantly, I'd like to see the evidence.

Do you mean brilliant CPC strategists like Calgarian Tom Flanagan? http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/st...html?id=1696082

Of course there's no cost. Right wingers and Evangelical Christians aren't about to abandon Harper because he supports Israel. For Ignatieff to take the same stance as Harper, which he has, there will be a political cost at least among some Muslim supporters of the Liberal Party. Or are you in denial that Ignatieff has taken the same stance as Harper?

Of course he's pandering to the "Jewish vote." Who's denying that? He's also pandered to the Quebecois at a cost of billions to the rest of Canada but that doesn't mean that Quebecois have voted for him in significant numbers. You made the outrageous claim "Funny how the party that stridently pro a certain country suddenly gains almost universal support from a certain ethnic group." Yet you have no statistics to back up your absurd claim that he has received even 50% of the Jewish vote let alone has almost universal support.

I remember when it was "common knowledge" that they were all Socialists or Communists.

The Christian Heritage Party did far better. I'm sure Harper worries about their impact on the right wing vote.

Unfortunately your "common knowledge" is inconsistent with voting patterns. Just look at Canadian ridings with the highest percentage of Jews. How many Conservative MPs were elected in those Montreal and Toronto ridings? What is common knowledge to anti-Semites does not appear to have much in the way of supporting statistical evidence.

I would agree that racism has some biological roots. There was a biological fear of outsiders even in the Stone Age: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...age-566708.html However, you seem to imply that because a phenomenon has biological roots, society can not and/or should not overcome that phenomenon. Xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and even polygamy have biological roots. Defecating outdoors also has biological roots. Most humans have the ability to overcome at least some of the uncivilized features which they share with nonhuman species.

What's your evidence for this statement?

What's your evidence for "almost universal support"? Let's see the numbers.

I too would rather comment on the full speech. Unfortunately Elniski chose to remove the speech from his blog after the controversy arose. Thus the offending statement remains in the public domain while the remainder of the speech does not. I suspect that if Elniski were proud of the entire speech, felt that it would put the offensive comment in context and/or revealed that the comment was a spontaneous aside and not actually part of the speech, it would not have been removed from his blog.

Yet Jack Layton bumped off NDP candidates who were open about their use of marijuana: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...27-4dca0569ea4a

Is this really what we want our politicians saying: In an entry about junior high school graduations, Mr. Elniski posted this advice to girls: "Men are attracted to smiles, so smile and don't give me that 'treated equal' stuff, if you want Equal it comes in little packages at Starbucks." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/st...html?id=1726922 No Canadian father, not even a Harper supporter, should be uttering such 1950's sexist drivel to his daughter. Equality is the cornerstone of contemporary democracies and elected politicians are accountable for defending, not attacking, this fundamental value.

How does Ignatieff's stance differ from Harper's?

Talk is cheap and that includes a professional politician's stand on Israel. Harper's stand on Afghanistan had long been that he would never cut-and-run. But last year, in the midst of an election campaign with a majority of Canadians, especially Quebecois, opposing Canada's Afghanistan involvement, he suddenly announced that he would cut-and-run and bizarrely even went on US television to tell Americans why the Afghanistan insurgency will never be defeated.

When did they stop considering themselves a race?

You mean all those TD common shares are owned by Jews? I wonder why they allowed me to buy TD shares.

CBC owned and controlled by pro-Israeli JEWS? Rabinovitch was appointed CBC President by Chretien. Is this your evidence that the CBC is owned and controlled by pro-Israeli Jews? Harper replaced him with Hubert Lacroix, the current CBC President. Is Lacroix a pro-Israeli Jew?

Yes, they always keep their promise.

Taliban Jack? It was Taliban Steve who said we'd never cut and run in Afghanistan then not only announced the date on which Canada would cut and run but also bizarrely went on CNN to tell Americans why we'd cut and run: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads= Other than to stay in power, there are few remaining principles in the Harper arsenal.

So Marx and Lenin, who you claim are Jews, would have seen themselves as part of a distinct Jewish "race"? And all European Jews would see all Asian Jews and black African Jews as part of the same Jewish "race"?

And the Conservatives have growth potential with social conservative Harper as their leader?