Fortunata

You people miss the whole point ( do you do that on purpose?). Fine to have non-Canadians post here, the more the merrier. I don't think it's fine to co-opt topics in the Canadian politics/Federal section to post about the USA (or any other country) unless it's pertinent to the topic, which in many cases it has not been. THAT'S the point.

Time will tell. Unless you're an Oilers fan. That's pretty much THE topping.

Funny JGB, my finding an American (or Brit or Spanish or Danish or any other nationality for that matter) at a domestic Canadian political convention would only be considered anti-American by someone who is grasping at straws. As for the who are you, where did you come from, it was purely rhetorical. Don't care, don't care, don't care. But it is strange and as you co-opt Canadian political forums for discussion of ANOTHER COUNTRY (more anti-Americanism?) it is appropriate to comment on it. I'm sure you could find the correct place if you try. By the way, I have a great sense of humOUr. That's a spelling mistake by whose standards? When in Rome............

Steven Harper, 2006 to early 2007 Socially regressive. Open federalism. Hard line crime, some unreasonable, yet doesn't support gun control. God Bless Canada. Global warming you say? There's more but it's suppertime.

Far right wing, compared to what, Kucinich!!! Most democrat's would probably be more inline with Conservative policies up here in Canada than Liberal policies, since the Liberal's are fairly left wing. Remember America is far more conservative than Canada is, and Harper would be considered a Liberal down in that country. Have we ever had a party or government more right wing than Harpers? I think not. Not in my lifetime anyways. Funny how you guys jump on little incidentals of a post whilst ignoring the overall message. And is your name jgb?

jbg, who are you and where did you come from? You seem to bring up the USA in your posts under Canadian Politics-not where they belong. As far as I can tell reading your posts you haven't once posed a non-Conservative opinion; you denigrate Trudeau in particular (not that he shouldn't come under criticism) and most things liberal in general yet you call yourself a liberal? Canada is but a blip on the US radar so I cannot understand your interest unless it is just to put down this country in any way you can. And attending a CPC convention? Why? I mean, really, a CPC convention? A Canadian political convention that IS NOT liberal, in fact is far right wing? What's it to you? Strange, strange, strange. You can't find harbOUr in your own country or what?

I heard him say it. That comment is directed to Harpnocrats; those who support anything Harper does no matter what. Sounds like you have a propensity to accuse someone of a propensity to jump to conclusions. Are you jumping to uninformed conclusions? Speculating isn't jumping to conclusions but in any case, turns out I was right about the vote being whipped, at least on the Conservative side. Some Liberals are saying they are voting against it and one NDP that I've heard so far. Only the Conservatives, it appears by all that has been said, will oust members that vote against (that is informed speculation).

Michael Chong said that he could not vote his conscience and be allowed to stay in the party. He chose to resign his position to just abstain from voting. Even as a back bencher it sounds like if you vote against you would be OUT. This whole thing is important. You Harpnocrats would yell bloody murder if it was a Liberal government that would not allow their ministers (let alone a backbencer) to vote the way they wished. Hypocritical to say the least.

CTV is reporting Chong's resignation from the Intergovernmental Ministery over Harper's motion to give Quebecer's nationhood. Once again party politics rule wherein members must vote according to their party instead of their constituent's wishes.

As far as I'm concerned, Harper doesn't have a mandate to declare Quebec a nation. He didn't campaign on it; if he did we might not be hailing Harper now. Something like this should be decided by referendum; one citizen, one vote. MP's are fine and dandy but they vote along party lines on issues, unlike the responsible John Q. Public.

This is ridiculous - who says that everyone in one country has to be exactly the same? Are Newfoundlanders the same as Albertans? Are British Columbians the same as Ontarians? Are Nunavutians the same as Nova Scotians? NO! Yet we fail to call all these different factions "nations"; if it is true for Quebecers it can be said it should be the same for all other ethnicities or regions. What is it that makes Quebecers think they are more special, more different than any other group that they deserve all the extras?

Canadian Blue, Iggy proposed it in order to get delegates in Quebec and then votes should he be the "chosen one". Lil Stevie pounced on the opportunity; he's looking for a majority. Others will back this as to not do so would be a vote against Quebec and that will never do come election time. It's great for them this time around but has anyone considered what future ramifications might be? No because by that time they probably will not still be in office. Strike 3025 for Iggy. Yep, it's all about politics and to hell with what's right for this country's future.

Anything to get more votes; a majority. What a cockamamy idea from Harper. I knew politicians were opportunists, power hungry and out for personal self but I actually didn't think they were willing to start the ball rolling to break up this country to satisfy their own political gain.

Just an observation Argus, not a personal attack but don't you think it's dangerous to be so loyal. Bad things have happened in countries where people don't think for themselves but follow doctrine no matter what it is. There is no way on earth that Harper and his government is perfect and no way on earth that the previous Liberal governments were completely wrong. It just doesn't happen that way. I find it very hard to take what you say seriously as it is Cons right, Libs wrong on all I have read that you have written (which, to be fair, isn't everything).

Chretien didn't hate the US. Relations between the two countries only cooled and became what you guys refer to as "hate" after Bush was elected. Chretien and Clinton interacted well and all was as friendly as could be between neighbours. This is something the bashers forget or don't care to admit. As far as Harper's in-your-face diplomacy - usually that just gets people's backs up. The Liberals soft diplomacy was too soft maybe but surely there could be a happy medium. I know if someone publically embarasses me I'm less inclined to listen and act upon what was criticized. I'd much rather have someone take a private tactic.

I'd agree, but sometimes their is so much Harper bashing going on just for the sake of bashing Harper that you feel inclined to defend everything he does. I guess both Cons and Libs could use that argument at any given time but it does not make for honest discussion. I like bashing government no matter who it is (although I have to admit Harper is my favourite) because they are the ones that have the power that is more misused than it should be. In real life, though, you don't get points because you stuck up for everything a party stands for just because. We are all losers when that happens.

Argus, is there anything the Conservative party could do that you wouldn't defend? I hate to tell you this but there is good and bad about every party and every government. Extreme partisanship does not a good country make.

Holy smoke! How on earth did you get anti-American out of that?

Sure he does. He's weighed in on political issues and people before. And he can because he is a Canadian. So can Justin Trudeau because he is a Canadian. Why not? You do.

It is not necesssarily a power play as you see it and you should not interpret other's opinions as such without them stating it is. It is a testing of the waters to see how many people just lay back and take it without comment to see how far he can actually go. Harper has stated he wants Canada to be a major world player and do you honestly think he will willingly take a back seat to the GG on that world stage? I think not. He wants to be as glorified as an American president is both domestically and around the world. No matter how Americans feel about their current prez or no matter how the world thinks about the current "world leader", the position is one of the highest ranking, if not the highest ranked. Harper wants a ranking on par.

jefferiah, I'd like to be your banker or financial advisor.

Harper will do and say, as most politicians, whatever will get the vote next time around. It's not about what is good for the country, it is what is good for the next election. Harper is no different than politicians ever have been, no matter how he tries to pretend he is not. Actions speak louder than words and so far he has followed (ig)noble traditions.

US style government has as many flaws as ours has. Don't forget they work on first past the post system as well. Last election, for example, Colorado with 2 (?) electoral seats was decreed from the bench that if one seat went one way then the other had to follow, notwithstanding one half of the state voted blue and the other voted red. That's like telling Alberta if one seat got a majority Liberal votes they would all have to be Liberal reps. That's one of their major flaws. Some people in this country would like to emulate the US systems in most things if not all things just because it is US and not Canadian. Grass is always greener when seen from afar and some Canadians feel inferior just because. However, you digress from the point, which is, while leader of Canada do not undermine protocol and tradition unless is it nationally discussed and agreed-upon. We have a GG for head of state, like it or not. If you don't like it change it openly instead of trying to slime under the radar. Do it like a man not a weasel.

This matter may seem insignificant at first glance, a slight matter of breached protocol, but it is significant. Harper has been a long admirer of US style government; he said in a speech many years ago that Canadian-style parliament is archaic. Harper will continually edge protocol to seek presidential-type powers slowly so it will escape whole-sale gab and criticism, much like some of you here think it is no big deal. It is one small step in what Harper would eventually like to see himself as, President of Canada. Harper is smart; he knows human nature. He knows one small step at a time will lead the ultimate goal and by then it will be too late because too many people will not recognize the import of each step. It will have been done. We will have been sheep (as we see here).

We have tests to determine everything from I.Q., apptitude, mental disabilities and illnesses to career suitability to whatever, surely we could have some test designed to better determine who will or will not integrate into our culture. It would not be foolproof but it would be better than what we have now. But a test like this would not be politically correct and no government will take it on, not even big, bad tough talking Harper.