normanchateau

How about fish cross-bred with Conservatives? There'll be no swimming in circles, just flipflopping and gasping for air.

Of course we were right to be in Dieppe. Canadian involvement in Afghanistan is more like American involvement in Vietnam. It does not remotely resemble Canadian involvement in World War II.

No, economists can make far stupider moves. Certainly Harper has made stupider moves. For example, thanks to Stephen Harper, on July 1, 2006, the income tax rate went from 15% to 15.5% and this rate now applies for taxable incomes up to $36,378. Raising taxes on those who earn the least in order to help pay for the 1% GST cut is absurd. An income tax cut would have benefitted the economy more, as numerous fiscally conservative economists pointed out in May when Harper loudly announced the GST cut and quietly imposed the income tax increase. Herb Grubel, now senior economist at the Fraser Institute was especially critical of Harper's stupid move in not lowering income taxes. It is interesting that when both Harper and Grubel were Reform MPs, Preston Manning removed Harper from the senior finance critic position and gave that position to Grubel. Harper became unity critic because he could speak French. Manning presumably viewed Grubel as a more effective finance critic. I wonder how Manning viewed the Harper-imposed increase in personal income taxes on July 1st.

The softwood lumber deal will lose Harper even more seats in BC than he lost in the January, 2006, election. When Frank McKenna presented to David Emerson, then a Liberal cabinet minister, a deal which involved a Canadian export tax and only the partial return of the 5 billion in illegal US duties, Emerson turned it down. But Emerson accepted a similar deal presented to new ambassador Wilson. Harper undoubtedly deserves credit for Emerson's flipflop but it is a betrayal of the BC lumber industry, most of whom remain outraged by the current deal. And how exactly has the current deal helped Canada-US relations? The US still has not backed down on the passport issue despite Harper's grovelling. The US did not return a billion in illegal duties. And Canadian forest companies now pay a 15% export tax which is even higher than the 10.8% illegal duties previously imposed by the US. Emerson and Harper betrayed the forest industry and Canada in this ridiculous "deal". Anyone who views this deal as beneficial to Canada or Harper's re-election prospects needs to face reality. The US lumber lobby won. Canada lost. And Harper made it happen.

Yes, Mahmoud, all Canadians, especially those in Quebec, are eager to fight for the distinctly Canadian values in Afghanistan. Too bad most Afghanis don't seem to appreciate our efforts. Afghanistan will do for Harper what Iraq has done for lameducks Bush and Blair.

If it is a myth, that's news to me. The story appeared in the April 27, 2006, issue of the Vancouver Sun under the heading Softwood Deal. It was easy to find online with Google. In that story, David Gray, BC spokesman for the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council, described the deal "as similar to one the Americans delivered to former Canadian ambassador Frank McKenna during the federal election. That plan was rejected by the Liberal government largely on the advice of David Emerson, who was then a Liberal cabinet minister." In describing the deal that Emerson was touting as the new US offer, Gray said: "They've taken McKenna, they've put lipstick on it, they've put a girdle on it, high heels and a wig, but it's still a pig." That story appeared in April. You claim that the story is a myth and that the Liberals put the myth to rest. What's your evidence and are you suggesting that the spokesperson for the Free Trade Lumber Council was spreading lies?

If Harper is not pandering to homophobes, social conservatives and religious nuts, then why is he "re-visiting" same-sex marriage? It was not an election promise he needed to make. And given his history of flipflopping on election promises, it is not an election promise he needs to keep. Not very politically astute are you? Think about it. If he presents it now in a minority parliament, who's going to be in favour and who is going to be against? Why is he bringing it up if he knows it has no chance of passing? Because he said he would, and he won't have to deal with it again. Nice try but Harper said he'd re-visit the issue BEFORE he was elected and BEFORE he knew that he'd have a minority government. And your theory that he's doing it "because he said he would" is even more laughable given his flipflop on income trusts.

Is that why they took so long to elect Sharon? Sharon was never a member of the right-wing, murderous terrorist group Irgun which Shamir belonged to. Or can you not distinguish Haganah from Irgun?

If Harper is not pandering to homophobes, social conservatives and religious nuts, then why is he "re-visiting" same-sex marriage? It was not an election promise he needed to make. And given his history of flipflopping on election promises, it is not an election promise he needs to keep.

At the Marid conference, the Syrian foreign minister held up a British 'Terrorist Wanted' poster of Itzhak Shamir. Shamir of course went on from his humble terrorist days to become prime minister of Israel. Does this mean Israel is a terrorist state? Israel probably could be accused of being a terrorist state had Israel elected Shamir in 1948. Shamir became Prime Minister in 1980 after decades of political rehabilitation. It is even conceivable that Hamas, after they renounce violence and acknowledge Israel's right to exist, might in 30 years time form a respected government. But currently Hamas deserves no more respect than the scumbag terrorist Shamir did in the 1940's.

I agree that it's impractical to an almost delusional extent to think the creation of Israel it can be undone. It would also require crimes against humanity to do it. But that doesn't sweep Hamas into the category of delusion of Mein Kampf, and it doesn't mean that Hamas' position is unintelligibly nonsensical Mein Kampf provided multiple reasons, which were convincing to many Germans, why re-taking eastern territories now belonging to someone else, was perfectly justified. In some cases, Hitler was talking about territories lost by Germany less than a decade prior to the writing of Mein Kampf. Hamas is talking about 58 years ago...more delusional than Mein Kampf in that respect.

Well if "The Tories calculate..." it, it must be true. As I recall, when Mulroney introduced the GST, he calculated that it wouldn't hurt the party in the long run.

The two most recent one's, i.e. the one's with the "astonishingly" anti-Harper titles were started by the same poster. Who always starts multiple anti-Harper threads. Maybe to combat this we are better off to start more threads with pro-Harper themes... right on !!!! Yes, I'd like to see some pro-Harper threads as well. How about one about his uncanny wisdom in hiring Darrel Reid as Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose? The environment never had a better friend than Darrel. Or how about one about how Harper helped anti-abortionist Charles McVety oust Garth Turner from the Conservative party? Or maybe one about how Harper got Emerson to pull a Belinda? Or maybe one about how Harper cleverly appointed an unelected Quebecer who had chaired Harper's leadership campaign to Senate then made him an unelected cabinet minister. How about one about how David Emerson, as a Liberal cabinet minister rejected a US-neogtiated softwood lumber deal which imposed export duties and kept one billion dollars worth of illegal duties, then as a Conservative cabinet minister, accepted exactly the same deal? I'm sure that can be spun into a pro-Harper thread, e.g., "Harper Made Him Do It."

Depends on what you mean by "take notice". Mein Kampf is filled with histrionic rationalization and delusional motivation for the ultimate annihiliation of a people just as the current Hamas government of Palestine rationalizes why an entire country should have no right to exist. Appeasement was the wrong approach in 1938. It still is. Mein Kampf is delusional drivel. Hamas' resistance to Israel is a rationally comprehensible interpretation of historical events. They view the imposition of the state of Israel in Palestine in 1948 as a wrongful act. No sound reason has been given for them to change their view on that, and so they continue holding that position. Delusional drivel to you but it was embraced and eagerly read by a nation which used it to rationalize murderous behaviour and invasions of others' territories. It is delusional if not hallucinatory for Hamas, after the nation of Israel has legally existed for multiple generations and 58 years, to claim that the same nation should not exist. Fatah understood this but the Palestinians have chosen to be governed by Hamas. No so coincidentally, Mein Kampf has been a best seller is aramaic for a few years. You have to understand your enemy. Apparently translations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion sells even better.

Glad you see the Liberals as being shameless - but since their actions have proven them to be far superior so far its a non starter. It remains to be determined whether Harper is less shameless than the next Liberal leader. I suppose it depends on who the Liberals select in December. The Conservatives would also benefit from having a new leader but alas for them, they're stuck with social conservative Harper in the next round. I suspect Harper will be dumped after the next election. He can't possibly win a majority so whether he loses the election or wins another minority government, he'll be dumped like garbage.

Depends on what you mean by "take notice". Mein Kampf is filled with histrionic rationalization and delusional motivation for the ultimate annihiliation of a people just as the current Hamas government of Palestine rationalizes why an entire country should have no right to exist. Appeasement was the wrong approach in 1938. It still is. Mein Kampf is delusional drivel. Hamas' resistance to Israel is a rationally comprehensible interpretation of historical events. They view the imposition of the state of Israel in Palestine in 1948 as a wrongful act. No sound reason has been given for them to change their view on that, and so they continue holding that position. Delusional drivel to you but it was embraced and eagerly read by a nation which used it to rationalize murderous behaviour and invasions of others' territories. It is delusional if not hallucinatory for Hamas, after the nation of Israel has legally existed for multiple generations and 58 years, to claim that the same nation should not exist. Fatah understood this but the Palestinians have chosen to be governed by Hamas.

Really? Why did Harper state that he would re-visit the same-sex marriage issue if elected? Did he need to say this to get elected? Who would the religious nuts, social conservatives and homophobes have voted for otherwise?

ROTFLMAO sure whatever, and the Liberals aren't shameless - Read about Goodale & Brison’s complicity in their income trust debacle before and after the election. It’s “Pot Calling Kettle Black” syndrome. Surely the Conservatives might want to aspire to something better than being no more shameless than the Liberals.

For some, it wouldn't matter what Harper did, it would never be right under any circumstances. cheers There are a few things Harper has done right but certainly not enough to justify his re-election. Harper won the last election because of anger at the Liberals, not because the majority of Canadians had any confidence in Harper. Inconceivable that a majority of Canadians would ever elect a social conservative like Harper.

Depends on what you mean by "take notice". Mein Kampf is filled with histrionic rationalization and delusional motivation for the ultimate annihiliation of a people just as the current Hamas government of Palestine rationalizes why an entire country should have no right to exist. Appeasement was the wrong approach in 1938. It still is.

This is what some people said when Mulroney awarded the CF-18 contract to Quebec. They said it took courage to do it. Was it the right decision in the long run? It is interesting to read how some people would prefer that a campaign promise be kept even if it is detrimental to Canada and our economy. Nothing like a hatred of someone such that it blinds them to any sense of reason. Maybe we should have a poll: do you think that a politician should keep his promise even if a situation changes, such that the present situation is harmful to the country and the economy. The campaign promise was detrimental to the country when it was made. Goodale wanted to impose the tax a year ago but the Conservatives howled in outrage and shamelessly used this to their advantage to win an election.

Uhhh, I believe breaking the GST pledge would have been Chretien's and or Martin's idea.... Uhhh, in case you didn't notice this thread is about income trusts. And in case you hadn't heard, Ralph Goodale had ideas about them last year which the Cons promised not to impose. Well I for one am glad that The Conservative party decided to do what is best for the country instead of doing what is best for the Conservative party. Yes, I too am glad that the Conservative party finally decided to do what is best for the country. What a shame that this very same party vehemently attacked Ralph Goodale last year when he suggested exactly the same thing. And what a shame that this party campaigned on a promise not to do so. And of course we all know that come the next election, Harper will not make any promises that will benefit the Conservative party but only ones which will benefit the country. Like encouraging Emerson to switch parties in return for a cabinet post. Like appointing an unelected Quebecer to the Senate and then putting him in cabinet. Like approving the firing of Garth Turner. But the best evidence to date that Harper cares more about his country than the Conservative party was the appointment of Darrel Reid as Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose. Only a true patriot like Harper would appoint someone with Reid's qualifications to the environment portfolio.

I guess I learned more about Harper this week, that is, he obviously has the guts to make a decision based on what they feel very strongly is the right thing to do for Canada, regardless of the political ramifications. That takes courage and integrity. There's no question that it takes courage to break a campaign promise not to tax income trusts. Whether it takes integrity to break a campaign promise is a matter of debate. I suppose there are some who would argue that Chretien showed integrity in breaking his promise to get rid of the GST which was, of course, first brought in by the Mulroney Conservatives.

Palestinians are represented by the Palestinian Authority which recognizes Israel, Hamas is a party that holds a majority in the PA legislature at this time. Are you saying that the Palestinian Authority holds more power than the democratically elected majority government and if so, is it real rather than symbolic? Canada's Head of State is the Queen but Canada's real power rests in Ottawa. The Palestinians elected a government which refuses to recognize Israel or its right to exist. Negotiating with such a government makes about as much sense as negotiating with the NSDAP.

Uhhh, I believe breaking the GST pledge would have been Chretien's and or Martin's idea.... Uhhh, in case you didn't notice this thread is about income trusts. And in case you hadn't heard, Ralph Goodale had ideas about them last year which the Cons promised not to impose.