noahbody

If you're using these as examples of shifts, the 1st and 3rd are actually from the same paragraph of a Mcleans article from aug 2003. The other was earlier in 2003. I don't really see much of a shift here. But he has shifted as he should have.

"On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country. I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction." (Stephen Harper, letter to the Washington Times, December 11, 2005) Guess you stand corrected.

Yes, Harper would love to have soliders in Iraq and soldiers on the streets of Canada. He is the anti-christ and wants to boil your children in oil from Alberta, before eating them with fava beans. That is the most ridiculous response on so many levels. I'm not even sure I follow - are you denying that Harper supported the Iraq war? Or are you having such a difficult time coming up with an explanation for this MONSTROUS misjudgement on the part of your infallible hero that your only attempt at a justification is to put childish words in the mouth of the person who is raising this legitimate concern about his questionable pro-war views? Yes, Harper supported the war in Iraq, like Martin and Ignatieff, but he did so based on the intelligence at the time. It may be fair to characterize him as a leader who is quick to stand by allies in times of conflict, but trying to characterize him a lover of war is ignorant. Do you think he dearly loves phoning the familes of killed soldiers? Specifically on Iraq, Harper is on record (2005) saying he wouldn't send Canadian troops as PM. Could you tell me what his pro-war views are?

The only one I ever heard say that is Sheila Copps. Is there any other source? "Canada should be there." Paul Martin (Halifax Daily News, January 15, 2003)

Yes, Harper would love to have soliders in Iraq and soldiers on the streets of Canada. He is the anti-christ and wants to boil your children in oil from Alberta, before eating them with fava beans.

[ A country with that much oil only needs nuclear power for one of two reasons. And I don't think they're jumping on the Al Gore bandwagon quite yet, pursuing alternatives to fossil fuels. But I just I could be wrong. They are crazy afterall.

If the UN has one objective, it should be to prevent another world war. Iran is a real threat to this if they achieve nuclear status. Nuclear weapons have served as a deterrent to war for decades due to the fear of death. There is no such deterrent in Iran. The debate shouldn't only be cetered around whether the current government is likely to pull the trigger, but also include the likelyhood of a government forming that would.

This is a good example why Harper went to Afganistan. Writing about the rebuilding that is going on in Afganistan just doesn't make a good story and surely doesn't sell papers. Canadians who get their 'informed' opinions from the media only see one side of the story. Since the troops hear how Canadians don't support their mission, it's a good move to take members of the media (even hostile ones like Robert Fife) and bring attention to the other side so Canadians can better judge the war, even the ones who still think Afganistan and Iraq are the same place.

What's truly wrong with the American system is brand loyalty. If you're Republican, you support the party, no matter what. Same goes for the Democrats. The same can be said about Canadian politics as well. The problem with this is that loyalty impairs ability to see beyond the brand and judge the product for what it is.

[ And yet Karzai supports talks and even has some former Taliban is his government. That might change when the Taliban shows up to the meeting wearing the latest in suicide bomb fashion.

The study the doctor characterized as flawed was done under the Liberal government. We can only conclude they had a hidden agenda to support the oil industry.

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/s...ironment/1/1/5/ Nice totalitarian action heh?! The CPC now the very apparent goons of Oil need to be gone.

[ 'Stevie' is far too familiar to be counted as truly respectful. But 'Steve' on the other hand is an admiring reference to the close relationship he has built with President George Wilkes Bush. Mr Dithers would then be acceptable too, since it was a name given to him by the Economist. Using either name just shows partisanship and the objective to attack or defend based on party loyalty. Likely not the best approach if you want someone else to consider your opinion. It is kind of expected on a forum. Would be nice if the media referred to the PM as PM Harper though. They did that with Martin.

Sometimes I think a good strategy in that part of the world would be to give them all XBOX 360s. Free with exchange of explosives.

You'll have to enlighten me how a statement that was immediately taken back after it was said compares to a 200 page handbook that became policy this week. Well, you seem to realize isolating a single point and characterizing Dion because of it is unfair. You don't seem to realize that characterizing the manual as "The handbook of how to delay" is also a mischaracterization and unfair. If more people weren't blinded by political loyalty, maybe we'd get something done in this country.

"The handbook of how to delay" is like Stephen Dion is about bringing Taliban prisoners to Canada.

Here's a link from Don Martin who read the guide book. He refernces what it says in his article. It's basically a How to be a Chairman for Dummies guide. Did CBC even see a copy of it, before they wrote their story? Some of the things in there are definitely embarrassing, mainly because they assume the reader lacks skill, common sense and judgement. Whoever wrote it is incompetent. Still, Tory people should be judged and/or criticized by their actions. So shoud those in opposition. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...9464dce3de1&k=0

What you're doing is stereotyping in order to sell your viewpoint. I don't think anyone debates peace is positive. No one debates war is hell, either. War and the threat of war have achieved peace throuhout history. Apathy has also cost millions of lives.

Which cut? The Liberals wish to restore the 1% cut they brought in during the election, and reverse the GST cut. The 1% cut only affected the first tax bracket.

Then give us the freaking tax cuts!!!! Oh wait they can't. The CPC has pissed away billions on their "every poor child left behind" policy of simulated daycare. Not to mention the hundreds of millions thrown at Quebec to buy votes. How about giving Arar $10 million. I bet he doesn't care about gas prices anymore. Or all the money left in the Good ole US of A over the soft wood lumber fiasco. It's a damn shame there isn't a decent alternative right now. Although even the dirty lying, stealing, cheating, liberals cost us less money. I'm all for tax cuts as well. The deficit tax on gasoline should definitely be gone. I agree they've pissed away a lot of money. A lot of this due to them not governing as if they have a majority. Still they are the best option out there. The Liberals would cost the country far more meeting Kyoto and trying to implement a universal daycare program. Next to that the childcare payments look pretty good, and they are putting money back into people's pockets, fairly. I wasn't a big fan at throwing money at Quebec or Arar. He should have got nothing, especially when he drew suspicion to himself, forgetting a terrorist had signed his lease application. Soft wood was positive from a business standpoint. Generally you can only expect to recoup 60% of a bad debt. The agreement also stopped wasting money in the court system and getting lawyers rich. Getting rid of the long gun registry would make room for a tax break. Too bad that one has been politicized considering it accomplishes nothing.

You'd only actually get around $290. The cut only affects the first $29000 (approx) of income.

Agree or disagree....? .32 cents is the combined provincial and federal take. As far as reducing taxes at the pump, liberals should be against this for the same reason they were against the lowering of the GST. They should promote further income tax cuts as the alternative.

So it has made a difference to you. Where do you shop for soup. Seems like a great deal?

If you really want to try to tar and feather Harper, you should say he is pulling a Chretien.

But at least he has the brains to question the status quo and present an argument without resorting to character assasination. Questioning the status quo is positive. But doing it doesn't necessarily demonstrate intelligence. Problem-solving, which often does make use this questioning, is a demonstration of intelligence. From a problem-solving perspective, his comments don't seem very bright or realistic.