August1991 Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 (edited) If I'm not mistaken that's how Bob Rae described the Tories/Reagan/Harris in his interview with the sympathetic gay CBC Newfie Rick Mercer. [iIRC, Rae said that he wanted to be federal Liberal leader because he didn't agree with 'crappy right wing policies'. Then he went skindipping into a freezing lake for the cameras.] But what of it? What are "crappy right wing policies"? Does the Right really mean to "screw" ordinary people? Is the Right rich and the Left poor? In federal Canada? Edited November 30, 2007 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 If I'm not mistaken that's how Bob Rae described the Tories/Reagan/Harris in his interview with the sympathetic gay CBC Newfie Rick Mercer. [iIRC, Rae said that he wanted to be federal Liberal leader because he didn't agree with 'crappy right wing policies'. Then he went skindipping into a freezing lake for the cameras.] But what of it? What are "crappy right wing policies"? Does the Right really mean to "screw" ordinary people? Is the Right rich and the Left poor? In federal Canada? Is the same Rick Mercer who did a sympathetic that appearance at 24 Sussex with the Harper kids while Harper played "dad?" As for crappy policies, I guess if you are gay, you'd have to wonder why Harper tried to screw ordinary people from getting married by opposing same sex marriages. And that is just to start... I'm sure the gay marriage issue would be revisited if the Tories had a majority. Do you think that is a great Tory policy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 I think that Canadians must now just watch, Harper and the next PM, as to what they do as far as policies and changes to the government of Canada as we know. Why? IF, the SPP is going to happen, then one thing would have to be done is get rid of the senate, try to change the constitution, or watch for a PM that tries to tear apart the country, one provincce against the other. The next two is important because I read that is the timeline for the US and Caanda to merge, so I guess in the US, there election will help prevent it or help make this happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 I'm sure the gay marriage issue would be revisited if the Tories had a majority. Do you think that is a great Tory policy? Harper has said the issue is dead. That is the same thing the left said about abortion after Mulroney's first majority. "If they get another majority." *scary* *scary* *scary* just ain't workin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 Harper has said the issue is dead.That is the same thing the left said about abortion after Mulroney's first majority. "If they get another majority." *scary* *scary* *scary* just ain't workin... My personal favourite is that if he gets a majority, he's going to bring back capital punishment, though he's stated he wishes not to open debate. But for the scary, scary crowd, his words can't be trusted. And even if you believe him, a private member's bill could still be introduced. We can't take the chance. Worst case scenario, should this be his hidden agenda the number of people executed before he'd be soundly defeated in an election is 0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 My personal favourite is that if he gets a majority, he's going to bring back capital punishment, though he's stated he wishes not to open debate. But for the scary, scary crowd, his words can't be trusted. And even if you believe him, a private member's bill could still be introduced. We can't take the chance. I know. We all know how much he's proven his hidden agenda. Look at all the scary socon laws the Government has passed with a minority. Well actually it's none. First it was what he'd do if he wins. Then it will be what he'd do if he won a majority. What follows that? "Harper has been moderate in his first majority but wait until he gets a second majority." As everyday passes the number of people who believe *scary* *scary* *scary* goes down. You'll never please everybody. Just need enough to win a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningdog Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 Harper has said the issue is dead.That is the same thing the left said about abortion after Mulroney's first majority. "If they get another majority." *scary* *scary* *scary* just ain't workin... oh yes it is.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 (edited) oh yes it is.... Well, perhaps for you! Not for me, I'm afraid. I wouldn't care to say if most Canadians agree with you. I don't know them all and I haven't asked all of them. I'll wait for the next election to see what happens. I DO know that back in the early 90's when Harper was part of Reform he stood up and gave a speech where he told us that if the social conservatives in the party ever succeeded in pushing an anti-abortion, fundamentalist Christian agenda they would doom the new party to a flaming death at the polls! Then came Stockwell Day, a fundamentalist Christian. He kept pushing the bible thumper views until he took it too far and said he agreed that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago, with dinosaur bones included. Warren Kinsella, the Liberal campaign wonk, stuck the "Barney the Dinosaur" joke on Stockwell and the rest of the campaign was a slam dunk! I don't think abortion is high on Harper's agenda... Edited November 30, 2007 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 I for one HOPE he has a hidden agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 My personal favourite is that if he gets a majority, he's going to bring back capital punishment, though he's stated he wishes not to open debate. Wishing not to open the debate and promising that he will vote against bringing back capital punishment are two different things. Mulroney at least had the guts to say he was opposed to the death penalty and in a debate would speak against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 I think that Canadians must now just watch, Harper and the next PM, as to what they do as far as policies and changes to the government of Canada as we know. Why? IF, the SPP is going to happen, then one thing would have to be done is get rid of the senate, try to change the constitution, or watch for a PM that tries to tear apart the country, one provincce against the other. The next two is important because I read that is the timeline for the US and Caanda to merge, so I guess in the US, there election will help prevent it or help make this happen. The big thing a majority would do is get Harper to immediately authorize another two years in Afghanistan. That would be all the consensus he needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 oh yes it is.... Really? Does that explain why the Liberals can't get above the high 20s in the polls? Does that explain why Stephen Harper is Prime Minister? Does that explain why Paul Martin is retired now? Why the Conservatives would win a majority today with 38% or 39% of the popular vote because of vote splitting on the left? Your well-thought out and considered four word post symbolizes the well-thought out and considered attacks of *scary* *scary* *scary*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 Really? Does that explain why the Liberals can't get above the high 20s in the polls?Does that explain why Stephen Harper is Prime Minister? Does that explain why Paul Martin is retired now? Why the Conservatives would win a majority today with 38% or 39% of the popular vote because of vote splitting on the left? Your well-thought out and considered four word post symbolizes the well-thought out and considered attacks of *scary* *scary* *scary*. Get off it... the only reason is because of few backroom boys in the Quebec branch of the LPC. That is the ONLY reason Harper was able to win a minority and also the reason Martin retired. Now having said that, Harper has mused about certain things over his career that many find objectionable, one of these things was around SSM. Nobody said anything about it not being dead by the way, but I suppose you just needed a reason to pull out your *scary* tagline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 Well for the record, they were never against SSM, only against a whipped vote. They wanted a free vote which they had when they got elected. Really, 'nuff said about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 Get off it... the only reason is because of few backroom boys in the Quebec branch of the LPC. I don't think Chretien would appreciate you referring to him as a backroom boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 Now having said that, Harper has mused about certain things over his career that many find objectionable, one of these things was around SSM. Nobody said anything about it not being dead by the way, but I suppose you just needed a reason to pull out your *scary* tagline. We also heard from a few MPs in the Tory party that they wanted to revisit this issue when they got a majority. Enough said for people who might have wished to vote Tory but don't want to keeping voting on same sex marriage over and over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 Now having said that, Harper has mused about certain things over his career that many find objectionable, one of these things was around SSM. Nobody said anything about it not being dead by the way, but I suppose you just needed a reason to pull out your *scary* tagline. Again with the double-negatives? Harper moderated his position. He has acted exactly according to his position on SSM as he outlined during the last campaign. The issue is dead. The relatively long tenure of this Government has assured that. Is it still a tagline if it is the truth? Harper used to be soooo *scary* *scary* *scary* that he was too scary to trust with a minority. That was wrong. According to the ill-fated Liberal ad voting Conservative would mean soldiers with guns in our streets. They weren't making it up. That was wrong. Everytime the left tries these scary attacks and they prove to be patently false makes Harper's actual actions look that much better in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I don't think abortion is high on Harper's agenda... But it isn't off the agenda either. It wasn't high on Mulroney's agenda either and yet it was almost criminalized again during his government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 But it isn't off the agenda either.It wasn't high on Mulroney's agenda either and yet it was almost criminalized again during his government. "Almost" only counts in horseshoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 "Almost" only counts in horseshoes. It took the Senate to overturn it. Something Harper wants to get rid of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Surprisingly the CBC is yet again the voice of reason. Link June 2, 2004: Conservative Leader Stephen Harper tries to steer clear of the abortion controversy while campaigning for the June 28 election, saying he has no plans to change the country's abortion regulations if he forms the next government. The statement comes after his party's health critic says women considering an abortion should receive third-party counselling. Yet again another example of Harper doing what he said he would do. Yet again another piece of evidence undermining the credibility of *scary* *scary* *scary*> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I dont trust Harper with a majority. Hes already pushed some good issues (like raising the age of consent for minors from 14 to 16), but stepped backwards on others (gay marriage, decriminalization of marihuana). I think he would do damage to Canada with a majority. Off topic. Not that I would trust Dion. I simply don't think he has what it takes to run the country in any degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 More off topic, what the deuce, Rick Mercer is gay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 More off topic, what the deuce, Rick Mercer is gay? Apparently so. The Book on Rick Mercer "Stephen Harper was going to lead a government to save Canadian families," says Mercer, who is gay. "Now (that we have gay marriage) no one cares. As far I know, Canadian families are as strong as they ever were. If I get married, I don't know why that would have any effect on Stephen Harper's marriage." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 who cares if hes gay? Doesn't affect straight people who hes sleeping with. Idon't know why so many people get hung up on other peoples bedroom business. Right wing nonsense and wasted debate to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.