normanchateau

I'm sorry that stating the truth about Mr. Harper makes people want to hate me. He did vote against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 states, among other things, that killing lesbians and gays is a hate crime. I've provided the link. Have you read it and if so, what have I said that's untrue?

"it's the best deal that Harper and Emerson could get from the US lumber lobby" That is by defintion the best deal for the lumber industry. We wont win by dragging this out through the courts for years. The US administration isnt going to change their opinion and the US lumber industry isnt going to die overnight. Of course its not what is the absolute best agreement for the industry but its the best they can do. It's the best deal that they could get within the artificial deadline that they imposed on themselves. Had they waited until the US Court of International Trade ruled, as the court did last month, that all the illegal duties must be returned to Canada, the deal could very well have been better. The Cons were far too hasty in my opinion.

The agreement is not what's best for the industry. Ask the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council. They'll happily tell you. Rather, it's the best deal that Harper and Emerson could get from the US lumber lobby. And it's a deal similar to the one that Emerson advised the Liberal government to turn down when he was a Liberal cabinet minister.

Show me where I said, even once, that Harper is advocating that homosexuals be killed and that he advocates gay bashing and genocide. I never said that. What I did say reappears in my post from yesterday at 6:26 pm. Here is that quote again: "Nonetheless, one of the provisions of Bill C-250 was that the criminal code be amended to include killing people because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime." Argus then FALSELY stated: "A complete and total fabrication on your part." He was completely wrong of course. The link I provided makes it perfectly clear that the killing of people solely because they are gay or lesbian is a hate crime. That was one of the provisions of Bill C-250 which Harper voted against.

!!!!! Maybe the risk to the health and safety of Canadian MPs comes from what Tim Horton employees will serve them.

The Canadian peace movement today is really just another manifestation of anti Americanism. And what diabolically evil manifestation does the US peace movement represent?

Canadian Blue, yes I said Canada would become a major target if the US and Britain withdrew but I did NOT say that this "would hopefully knock Harper out of power." And yes I implied that more Canadians would be killed but I did NOT say that this "would hopefully bring about knocking Harper out of power." I did indeed imply that more deaths would lead to Harper's departure. You seem to be creating the term "hopefully" in your mind then misattributing it to me. I never said it. If you think I did, provide the quote.

Harper appointed Reid to Ambrose's office? Really? Very interesting. You know this, how? "There are indications the decision to hire him as Ambrose's top political aide came more from the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper than from Ambrose, who is not known as religious." The story appears here: http://www.meia.mb.ca/WeeklyFYIforOctober2....html#ReidStaff

Why would the provinces support the agreement then??? Why would lumber companies continue to oppose the agreement then?? Why did Mr. Harper raise personal income tax rates??

You seem unable to acknowledge that I was not hoping for the death of Canadian troops.

A complete and total fabrication on your part. An abysmal lack of knowledge on your part. The killing of people because of their sexual orientation is now a hate crime. It's Section 318 of the Criminal Code. Read Section 318 in the link below. In particular, read (2)(a) and (4) of section 318. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hatecrimes/ There it is in black and white. Harper voted against it. Do you still claim this to be a fabrication on my part?

It's bee pointed out to you by numerous people many, many times that this is a lie. You never challenge that, but you go on repeating it. Numerous people denying the truth does not make the truth false. Mr. Harper voted against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Bill C-250 states that killing people because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime. Now tell me which of these three statements is a lie.

Below is a link to Ron Gray, Leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, condemning Mr. Harper and his party from missing second reading of the bill. http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/ReHarpe...ingMarriage.htm

You're right of course that the mere fact that Mr. Harper voted against Bill C-250 is not evidence that he hates homosexuals nor is it evidence that he condones gay bashing. Nonetheless, one of the provisions of Bill C-250 was that the criminal code be amended to include killing people solely because of their sexual orientation is a hate crime. It's clear as can be in the amendment to 318(4) of the criminal code resulting from the passage of Bill C-250. Mr. Harper voted against Bill C-250. He did not indicate that he was opposed to hate crimes legislation but only the inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation. Call it gross, call it unsupported, call it a smear. Mr. Harper voted as he did on third reading of the bill. To his credit, he did not vote at all on the second reading of the bill resulting in condemnation by various extremist groups whom Mr. Harper placated by showing up on the third reading.

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

The CBC asked that very question. They have a reporter based on the base. Tim Horton's employees are there. Why no MPs allowed to visit? Did anyone respond to the CBC's question?

So when was the left talking about how they support the troops not the mission. Yet here we have talk about our troops getting killed, wow their sure is nothing like hoping Canadian troops die over in Afganistan for political gain eh. What a ridiculous and unfair accusation. At no time did I say or imply that I hoped Canadian troops would be killed. What I clearly said was that if the US and Britain withdrew, Canadians would become the main target. And I also indicated in no uncertain terms that would hasten Harper's departure. While there's no denying that I hope for Harper's departure from the PMO, it is a leap of logic for you to suggest that I want to see troops die. On the contrary, I want to see the troops out of Afghanistan so they don't die.

The entire committee has been asking to go. It has been the feature of a CBC National story that compared all the rest of the NATO countries to Canada in terms of trips to the region. Canada has the poorest record of MPs or Senators going. Harper and the military say it is too dangerous. Dutch and British MPs have gone dozens of times. Bizarre. Could it be that the Canadian MPs would be visiting areas more dangerous than those visited by Dutch or British MPs?

What major economic issues, income trusts??? We aren't in a deficit right now, and the country seems to feel Harper is doing an allright job as PM. You're right. We've got a huge surplus, not a deficit. Despite that, Mr. Harper on July 1, 2006, raised personal income taxes on those Canadians earning the least, i.e., in the lowest tax bracket. And thanks to Mr. Harper, the softwood lumber industry is paying even more in export taxes than they were in illegal duties to the US.

If my only purpose in life were to vent hatred about a poltiical figure and political aide on a message board .... maybe. I've been away from this board since January or so and just returned a couple of weeks ago. But yes, it would be sad indeed if that were someone's only purpose in life. I assume the aide you are referring to is Darrel Reid. Am I correct that whenever I bring up this person's name, supporters of Mr. Harper personally attack me rather than praise the virtues of Mr. Reid? Perhaps it's my imagination.

Do we know whether any of our MPs actually want to go visit? If yes, they should be allowed to do so.

You seem unhappy RB. Sorry about that. I suppose I would be unhappy too if my task were to try to convince others why they should vote for the wonderful Mr. Harper.

Sorry, but where's the contradiction? Can you name one other than World War 2? OK, I'll bite. Why not World War I?

I'm surprised that anyone would not see this as an insult to our veterans and as an insult to those who died fighting in the wars. Our veterans and those who died fighting our battles deserve our unqualified respect. Surely the peace movement can find a symbol which does not gratuitously offend those we should be thanking.

I agree completely with your comments about Iran. But I return to my earlier question. What if an even more extreme Taliban-like group was threatening the government of Iran. Should we help Iran? Because Afghanistan is an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy, I see the situation as comparable. Not identical, just comparable.