The Honest Politician

I already asked days ago for someone to provide proof of anyone stating they hate Americans. Still Waiting.

and the $500,000 to pay off MacKay's party debt? Where did that come from?

I think your "St. Patrick's Cross" is supposed to be an X on a ballot. Nice try though.

I said the removal of the clause was extreme. I also asked what issue Harper wants to use the clause on? He inferred himself there was atleast one issue he would use it on. And he made a point of adding "on this issue" like he wanted to make sure he had a back-door to duck out of when he does use the clause. So this clause is the only thing stopping us from having an American-style of Govt and Law Making? This I did not realize. Please explain.

Actually at the time it was "Her " party, and it was Kim Campbell.

CTV = Conservative TV? Given CTV vice-president Charle Bird's close ties to the Liberals, that's kind of a silly claim, don't you think? -k You obviously haven't been watching NewsNet on a regular basis. It seems like the only guy who brings up conservative gaffs is Duffy. Did anybody else see him read off the Conservative response to the debate minutes BEFORE the debate started. They already had it written and were slamming Paul Martin for being negative, before the debate had even happened. Why wouldn't the CTV employees be pro-conservative? Their tax dollars pay for part of their competion's salary. Something that would likely disappear under a pro-privatization conservative govt. I am not saying it is a company policy, more of an individual perspective that is given to most stories.

I went to the Liberal site and so far have only watched the Atlantic one. It features the "culture of defeatism" quotes, taken out of context from a speech that actually talked about empowering the Atlantic provinces by giving them a bigger stake in offshore resources. It features "war-drums of doom" music. And it presents Harper speaking in front of a backdrop of... himself, a photo of his eyes blown up so large that he looks like Sauron. Yes, I'd consider that negative. It's not talking about policy positions (the Liberals were so opposed to Harper's policy on Atlantic Canada that Martin implimented it himself last year.) It's presenting a scary image of Harper, scary music, and negative quotes. I do consider that negative. -k I saw that particular speech when Harper made it. It was right after the interview he gave where you could see he was reminding himself to smile. In the first week of the campaign. He did say there was a "culture of defeatism" in Atlantic Canada. He did go on to say he wants to change that, but he did say there was a culture of defeatism currently in Atlantic Canada. If Atlantic Canadians get insulted over that, was apparently a risk he was willing to take. It still doesn't change the fact he said it and meant it.

Why is it going across the TV screen " Experts say there was no clear winner in last nights debate." Try another channel.

That's kind of grasping at straws, isn't it? After all, if Martin remains Prime Minister to actually impliment this policy, it means Harper wouldn't be able to actually use the Notwithstanding Clause anyway. It's also a debateable issue... Right now Martin thinks the Notwithstanding Clause is the worst thing ever... a couple of years ago he apparently thought it was something he'd use if necessary to protect religious freedoms. What if some other issue-- perhaps preserving public healthcare-- created a scenario where Canadians would be in favor of using the clause? And it's also an empty promise, isn't it? Wouldn't removing the clause require a constitutional amendment? What are the odds of a minority government being successful in getting the provinces to agree to that? -k I really don't think the issue would have been raised if the Liberals where in the lead in the polls. I think Martin made the comment to try and illustrate how far he would be willing to go to protect minority rights and at the same time make people aware that the Harper controllers want to claw back freedoms. It seemed a bit over the top, especially when most people are unaware of the true power structure of the CPC.

So if candidates should be allowed "respond to the issues" why can't the candidates talk about the meeting with the pro marriage church group in Halifax?

Hahahahahaha Conservative TV

Harpers own words from the first debate: "I will not use the Notwithstanding clause......on this issue." So what issue will he use it on. Apparently the supreme court has given somebody rights or freedoms that Harper's controllers disagree with, and he intends to use the notwithstanding clause on it. Martin realises Harper's controllers are ultra conservative and want to repeal rights given to minorities that are disagreeable to their own beliefs. The removal of the notwithstanding clause is an extreme measure to try and ensure that the group behind Harper don't have the power to remove rights and freedoms because they simply don't agree with them.

Care to read the true feelings of those who control the CPC? Did you read what a Flanagan said? Harper owes Flanagan everything. Flanagan has orchestrated the entire federal political life of Harper. I fail to see how anything the Conservatives would have to say in regards to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can hold any water when Harper has made it clear how he feel about Human Rights and Human Rights organizations. In short I don't believe for a second a single word coming out of the Conservative camp because of the cloak and dagger politics that took place to put Harper into power, where after one failed attempt he is no longer the same person he was 18 months ago. I don't buy it. The entire leadership of the CPC "Liberalized" itself because their true agenda is going to flop the way it did in the first election.

You must have seen a different debate than most people.

Thomas Flanagan is the MAN in the CPC.

Please post where it has been said that someone "hates" americans.

The link on the CBC website (which won't work for me) has this for the link to Harpers contributions: Harper lists some of his leadership campaign contributors Notice where it says some. There is something here. Why are not all donors disclosed?

Spreading Hate is not free speech. Promoting Hate cannot be sloughed off as oppinion, because it is not. It is the base upon which violence against minorities is built. Therefore you could look at Spreading Hate as the premeditation of violence towards others. That is way beyond simple free speech.

The failure to see that Harpers value system is parrallel to that of the conservative United States is your problem. Should Harper get voted into power his values will become everyones problem. I don't think Americans are the great Satan but the conservative movement sure gets some little devils. I suppose you think there is nothing wrong with the whole Halliburton/LBJ/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Iraq/Bush/Texas Oil web of Govt contracts, and political favours.

Gilles Duceppe said tonight the conservatives are also involved with the Option Canada issue.

Many don't have internet access, some can't read, and there are tons of stupid people in the world. The main thing is the majority of people don't understand what his comments imply. Which is basically making Canada nothing more than a subsidiary of the United States. A junior partner who sheepishly follows and obeys the orders given from down south. This is especially true if there is any credence to the suspicion of Conservative Americans contributing to Harper's leadership campaigns.

Imprisonment for spreading hate is a bad thing? The fact the hate continues to spread is another problem. It shows a lowbrow mentality of most likely disenfranchised youth who are ready to believe propaganda fed to them about how it is the imigrants fault he can't get a good job and not the complete lack of education he personally has. I find it absolutly hilarious when these racist spew off about imigrants taking their jobs when they wouldn't work for minimum wage anywhere. So are you a proponent of Hate Organizations or Human Rights Organizations? Oops You have already made it clear you believe Hate is a freedom of speech. So is it fair to say, with the comment he made, Harper also believes Hate is a freedom of speech.

If it is the same party why are Chretien Faithful sabotaging it?

If every Canadian could understand the implications of the letters, speeches and comments made by Harper over the years he wouldn't even be party leader let alone potential Prime Minister.

The Conservative from the past is not the same as the Conservatives now. Why doesn't that argument fly when the Liberals point out it was a Chretien and not a Martin led party that had the problems.