normanchateau

A representative from Montreal is nice. I don't really see the Fortier appointment as too big a deal. Why do we need an unelected cabinet minister from Montreal? And if we do, isn't Toronto also worthy of an unelected cabinet minister?

How do you know she was a Muslim? Was she wearing a burqa?

What are "dippers"?

In my opinion, there is another way. Israel could elect a government more palatable to the left. From 1948 to 1977, Israel was governed by the Labour party or Labour party coalitions. At that point, despite previous wars, Israel was not vilified to the extent that it is today by the left. But when Israel elected Begin and a subsequent string of like-minded right-wingers like Shamir and Sharon, Israel's reputation gradually shifted. Fear contributed to the election of these right-wingers just as it contributed to George Bush's election. Having a neighbour next door whose elected government claims Israel has no right to exist will not eliminate that fear.

You get off my topic! If you can't keep from giving an unconstructive and trolling opinion...or prevent yourself from being childish...then butt out of here! Don't trash my topic! OK, let's replace Gerry's question with a potentially more salient one: "If there were a series of reported incidents of sexual abuse of Canadian children by Muslim preachers, should we round up ALL Muslim preachers in Canada?"

Yes, not very much but I have. I post quite a bit so it's entirely understandable people could miss the few objections I have presented. The flag flap was bad optics and not handled well. The Emerson appointment wasn't an ideal decision. MacKay should have apologized, but not resigned over the dog comments. How about the Fortier appointment? Fortier was the manager of Harper's leadership campaign as I recall. And he was rewarded with a Senate appointment AND a cabinet position. Did Harper need an unelected cabinet minister from Quebec given the number of elected Quebec MPs?

I do recall their promise on income trusts was about protecting seniors. Broken promise? They promised not to tax income trusts and they broke that promise. The other tax concessions to seniors does not change the fact that they broke their promise to ALL income trust holders. Rationalizing broken promises did the Liberals no good and it will do the Conservatives no good.

They're certainly the only party in the House of Commons with a "real social conservative" leader. Whether they're more fiscally conservative than the Liberals depends on your measure. The Liberals lowered the personal income tax rate on more than one occasion whereas the Conservatives increased it on July 1, 2006.

They promised to protect seniors. They have. I don't recall that they promised to protect seniors from broken Conservative campaign promises. In any event, many affected by the broken promise aren't senior and aren't protected.

They campaigned on it. True, but rumor has it that they've been known to reverse campaign promises.

OK, fair enough. But what about my comments about the person who started this thread? Have you *ever* seen them say anything positive about the government? I've been away from this board for almost a year and just returned recently. So I'm not a good judge. However, I do recall a year ago people consistently starting anti-Martin and anti-Liberal threads and never having anything positive to say about the government. I think it's to be expected on discussion boards like this and you shouldn't get riled. What riles me is the personal insults which get exchanged between one poster and another. I'd rather just debate the issues but emotions sometimes tempt even well-meaning posters to exchange insults unnecessarily. Just because you and I are on opposite sides of the political fence doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions or you as a person.

For the sake of the Liberals, I hope Iggy is toast. For the Liberals to select him as leader will do them as much harm as the Cons did to themselves in selecting Harper.

Yes, I've strongly defended the PM's pro-Israel position on a large number of occasions.

Curiously, the Conservatives actually increased the personal income tax rate on July 1st, 2006, ...a very odd action for a Conservative government which inherited a huge surplus.

If your operational definition of "far above" is not screaming then yes, I agree.

It is not a theocracy. It is a democracy, though the rules of a heavily religious people are based largely on the Koran. However, the government intervened to prevent the one time sentence against the one offender found, from being carried out. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a democracy (like Iran) in that they have elections. It is a theocracy in that their constitution decrees that the Koran over-rides all other legislation, democratic or not. The government intervened after extraordinary pressure from George Bush and other world leaders to have the Christian convert permanently exiled from Afghanistan or face death if he returns. Sounds remarkably reminiscent of a theocracy.

It seems to me that about a year ago there were an extraordinary number of threads attacking the Prime Minister. And when the Liberals pick their next leader and he becomes Prime Minister, there will again be an extraordinary number of threads attacking the Prime Minister. So what's my point? It's far easier to attack the government of the day because governments actually do things and in so doing, they will invariably offend those who don't support them. Let me make a prediction, RB. When the next Liberal Prime Minister is elected, you too will start threads attacking him. You might even starts threads attacking him once he's selected leader of the party next month.

Why do I see Dion as easy to beat for the Conservatives? The tough to understand English hurts him on the campaign trail. (While it worked for le petit 'gar, it doesn't work for a university professor to speak the most common offical language in the country so poorly.) He isn't well liked in his home province. He has very little appeal to centrist Canadians. He is the only serious candidate who is truly less charismatic than Harper. I agree with you completely on the first and third points. On the second point, true, but neither was Chretien. Unless the Liberals (or Conservatives) pick a leader who appeals to separatists, the BQ will continue to win the most seats in Quebec. On the fourth point, I disagree completely. In the one (and admittedly only) radio interview I've heard with Dion, he actually came across as having charm, insight and a sense of humour.

Amen!

Your point being? My point being that Harper has no problem with hate crimes legislation based on race, ethnicity or religion. But he doesn't see gay bashing as worthy of hate crimes legislation. If it's not homophobia, it's likely religious extremism that motivated him to vote against the legislation. This is an understandable position if he were leader of the Christian Heritage Party but he's the Prime Minister of Canada, all of Canada.

Bosnia and Haiti aren't theocracies and there was a reaonable chance for success in our peace keeping missions there.

The current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a theocracy which imposes death sentences on those who convert to Christianity. Sure the Taliban are far worse but I see no compelling reason for Canadians dying to save an Islamic theocracy composed of warlords, mullahs and corrupt government officials even if it is supported by most Afghans.

There is legislation against gay bashing. It is called assault and battery. There is legislation against attacking any person, whatever their race, religion or ethnicity but Harper has no problems with hate crime legislation on those grounds.

I wonder how many there are out there. What if this group all votes Green instead? There will definitely be some NDP who vote Liberal because of Rae. I honestly don't think the number in either group will be very large, probly will cancel each other out. I think Rae will face an uphill battle. What are your objections to Dion other than he's a Liberal?

It does look like that. I am definitely not a "Liberal" supporter, but the Liberal Party of BC is not a Liberal party. They are not formally linked to the Liberal Party of Canada. If I ever move back to BC I definitely will support them ... if they are still around. In hindsight it basically looks like a name change from the Socreds but a little more complex IIRC. In 1991 Gordon Wilson lead the Liberals out of the wilderness. The Socreds under VanderZalm/Rita Johnson collapsed and were looking for a place to park their anybody but the NDP votes. Wilson was a credible option, and IMHO a many who was really trying to offer a third choice between the Socreds and the NDP. When he formed opposition the Socreds took over the Liberal Party of BC and forced Gordo Wilson out to replace him with Gordo Campbell. What was that party he formed with Tyabji? Progressive Democratic Alliance? Then he become and NDP cabinet minister and sorta ran for their leadership... BC politics has become a lot more normal in the last ten years or so. Too bad! Your'e correct on all counts RB. The BC Liberals sort of did what the Cons did years later by uniting the right. The NDP only won provincial elections, e.g., Barrett, Harcourt and Clark, when the right/centre ran more than one party against them. If the Federal Cons could somehow unite the rght and more centrist voters, they could win a majority. But whether you want to admit it or not, they can't do it with a so-con leader. Gordon Campbell is a fiscal conservative, not a so-con by any stretch of the imagination. He favours ssm, favours no arrests for marijuana possession, etc.