Harper's End of Year Speech

[Argus]

Harper also said that the Dalai Lama is not a "call girl."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p.../20/152224.aspx

I'm glad he got that straight.

Harper was, of course, referring to the cowardice of Liberal leaders. Chretien refused to have anything to do with the Dalai Lama for fear of upsetting the Chinese. His people tried to make sure he wasn't even in the same city at the same time. Martin dithered for weeks about whether he would meet him or not, and then finally decided that he "could" meet with him only as a religious representative, not as the leader of his people. And to underscore that he meet him at the home of a Catholic Archibishop -= for 5 minutes.

Oddly - there was NO criticism of this failure to support human rights from any of you so-called liberals.

[jbg]

Harper was, of course, referring to the cowardice of Liberal leaders. Chretien refused to have anything to do with the Dalai Lama for fear of upsetting the Chinese. His people tried to make sure he wasn't even in the same city at the same time. Martin dithered for weeks about whether he would meet him or not, and then finally decided that he "could" meet with him only as a religious representative, not as the leader of his people. And to underscore that he meet him at the home of a Catholic Archibishop -= for 5 minutes.

Oddly - there was NO criticism of this failure to support human rights from any of you so-called liberals.

Thank you for pointing that out for jdobbin's benefit since he has me on "ignore" and I made a similar point. I don't mind that he has me on "ignore" but he's made it a point to be somewhat vocal about it, accusing me of "smears". I apologized for the one post that was arguably a smear. Edited December 23, 2007 by jbg

[Argus]

I will respectfully reply that the intervention of outside force into a domestic situation is a very dangerous game to play, as the United States is well aware.

Naive. The world is very small today. The more tyrannies the worse off we all are. And in today's world, frankly, it's virtually impossible, given government control of media, for there to ever be a successful, grass level fight against a brutal tyranny like the Chinese government.

I would recommend that Canada not follow the lead of other nations and instead return to the role of keepers of the peace. I would further suggest that this nation focus instead on the humanitarian effort to reduce the pain and suffering experienced by nations in conflict.

You mean return to being morally bankrupt cowards like most of the Europeans? Express no disapproval of brutal tyranny, and no support for those defying or resisting it? Deal freely and openly and with friendship with today's Hitlers and Mussolinis and Pol Pots, shaking hands and putting our arms around them and smiling for the cameras - as Chretien did? Then toss a few pennies their way to assuage our guilty consciences?

To do otherwise would in my opinion be merely passing judgment on a culture not our own. Taking sides is a political exercise that seldom results in the sparing of lives but often results in the taking of lives.

Yeah? Bullshit. I pass judgment over people, organizations and nations without difficulty. As does everyone else. We're not supposed to express an opinion on some brutal thugocracy lest we offend them? Bullshit. Foreign cultures? Bullshit. The only tyrannies which can lay any claim to cultural origin are the religious theocracies in the middle east. Three of them. All brutal, vicious and evil by almost any standards you care to consider.

[Argus]

Harper is a big disappointment - he is not a nice guy...He is not interested in anything other than the drug that he was addicted to by his handlers - POWER - sorry - that's not enough to be king of Canada - he is an inferiour hockey playing kid from Leaside - one hand picked and formed by some old bay street lawyers not to mention the power hogs in Montreal- thats all you get for your money - is a Harper - what the hell good is this twit to the Canadian public - he don't give a crap ...he's like a kid that you buy a Porche for - and now he wants more - a faster and more impressive car - he is bribable - not by money persay - buy by the power within the office - this is not a Winston Churchill - just a poor version of Dick Cheney - and I hope I spelled that right for you overly educated boys....Harper is neither liberal or conservative - he is strickly big buisness - all they asked of him was "will you whip your lesser slaves?" - and he said yes - simple.

Does the theory and practice of punctuation confuse you? It's difficult to break down and reply to a confused mishmash of a rant when you can't even find a period in which to break in. Harper clearly has ethics and beliefs or he would simply adopt whatever fad and policy would be most popular with a flighty public and be most likely to get him a majority. For example, he would embrace same sex marriage, abortion, and spent billions and billions on combating Global warming. That might well get him his big upsurge in popularity, especially in Quebec. There is NO valid electoral reason for doing otherwise. Just principles.

[Argus]

Also, the costs to fix the conservative damage will be billions and billions and guess who's going to be opposed to this type of spending? They'll be looking for a "made in Canada solution" instead.

Conservative damage? What Conservative damage? Or are you going to try blaming the American mortgage default crisis on Harper?

In Canada, we have had a series of strong tax cuts designed to bring down the enormous budgetary surpluses. Those surpluses are still in place but shrinking, and the overtaxation which caused them is being lowered. Nothing wrong with that, and less taxation helps stimulate the economy and create jobs.

[Argus]

Yes, it will be interesting to see him announce tax cuts and spend like crazy in advance of an election. I wonder if he will be able to keep the mounting deficit a secret if that is the plan.

It worked for the Tory government in Ontario for a while.

Mounting deficit? Interesting propaganda ploy, Doctor Goebbels, but I think most people are aware we have a large surplus. Of course, since you're a shill for the Liberal party you're clearly not looking for smart people to convince. Those are hopeless causes to you.

[jdobbin]

Mounting deficit? Interesting propaganda ploy, Doctor Goebbels, but I think most people are aware we have a large surplus. Of course, since you're a shill for the Liberal party you're clearly not looking for smart people to convince. Those are hopeless causes to you.

More personal insults?

We have a large surplus in part because the economy is doing well. We are hearing from Harper that it is expected that 2008 could be tough year. Some economists are predicting stagflation. More tax cuts are coming in 2008 starting with the GST and more spending comes into effect in terms as well. Taxation revenue from booming corporations (one of the main reasons for surpluses in 2007) are likely to be down. We have already seen one monthly deficit in 2007 during the so-called boom times. I'd hate to see what happens in 2008 with the economy slowing.

[jdobbin]

In Canada, we have had a series of strong tax cuts designed to bring down the enormous budgetary surpluses. Those surpluses are still in place but shrinking, and the overtaxation which caused them is being lowered. Nothing wrong with that, and less taxation helps stimulate the economy and create jobs.

And there was almost no cuts in spending. It is higher that what the Tories promised and forecast to be the same amount in 2008 by Flaherty. An election in 2008 or 2009 is going to be fought on cutbacks by the Tories? I rather doubt that. When it was possible that an election was going to be held in the spring, they made announcements every day in the millions.

[jdobbin]

Harper was, of course, referring to the cowardice of Liberal leaders. Chretien refused to have anything to do with the Dalai Lama for fear of upsetting the Chinese. His people tried to make sure he wasn't even in the same city at the same time. Martin dithered for weeks about whether he would meet him or not, and then finally decided that he "could" meet with him only as a religious representative, not as the leader of his people. And to underscore that he meet him at the home of a Catholic Archibishop -= for 5 minutes.

Oddly - there was NO criticism of this failure to support human rights from any of you so-called liberals.

Actually, there was quite a lot of criticism for Chretien and Martin's stance. However, even Dion with his difficulties in the English language would not likely say the Dalai Lama is a "call-girl."

Edited December 23, 2007 by jdobbin

[jbg]

When it was possible that an election was going to be held in the spring, they made announcements every day in the millions.

And where were those brave "Liberals" who were voting for and/or abstaining on these odious money bills? I guess that they didn't want an election, and projected that desire on the Canadian people.

[jbg]

Actually, there was quite a lot of criticism for Chretien and Martin's stance. However, even Dion with his difficulties in the English language would not likely say the Dalai Lama a "call-girl."

At least Harper met the Dalai Lama openly and notoriously.

[Argus]

Actually, there was quite a lot of criticism for Chretien and Martin's stance

From Conservatives, yes, not from Liberals. Liberals don't care about human rights in Canada so it's hard to figure why they would care about human rights elsewhere.

However, even Dion with his difficulties in the English language would not likely say the Dalai Lama is a "call-girl."

No, Dion won't likely mention the Dalai Lama at all.

Uh... what IS Stephan Dion's position on Tibet and The Dalai Lama?

Or does he have one?

[Michael Bluth]

And where were those brave "Liberals" who were voting for and/or abstaining on these odious money bills? I guess that they didn't want an election, and projected that desire on the Canadian people.

Yup, it will be very interesting to see how the Liberals campaign against a Throne Speech they didn't oppose.

[jdobbin]

From Conservatives, yes, not from Liberals. Liberals don't care about human rights in Canada so it's hard to figure why they would care about human rights elsewhere.

No, Dion won't likely mention the Dalai Lama at all.

Uh... what IS Stephan Dion's position on Tibet and The Dalai Lama?

Or does he have one?

There was lots of criticism from Liberals that Martin should have not been so concerned about Chinese criticism in regards to a meeting. Martin had criticized Chretien for not meeting with the Dalai Lama at all and became the first leader in Canada to meet him.

Dion met with the Dalai Lama this past year and the policy has been to support the Dalai Lama is his peaceful case. Harper's position is that China is the government of Tibet.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...71026/20071028/

Currently, Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade recognizes China as the legitimate government of both China and Tibet -- but has "great respect" for the Dalai Lama.

[Argus]

There was lots of criticism from Liberals that Martin should have not been so concerned about Chinese criticism in regards to a meeting.

Funny how no one ever heard it at the time.

Martin had criticized Chretien for not meeting with the Dalai Lama at all and became the first leader in Canada to meet him.

For five minutes in the home of an Archbishop, desperately insisting the whole time that he was just talking religion - Martin - a man with no religious beliefs anyone has ever been able to note.

Dion met with the Dalai Lama this past year and the policy has been to support the Dalai Lama is his peaceful case. Harper's position is that China is the government of Tibet.

After Harper met him the Opposition was placed in a difficult position, and all three party leaders met him together (Dion succeded in not sitting next to the Dalai Lama despite being the Opposition leader). However, I want to know what Dion has said about the Dalai Lama, Tibet and human rights. Anything?

[jbg]

After Harper met him the Opposition was placed in a difficult position, and all three party leaders met him together (Dion succeded in not sitting next to the Dalai Lama despite being the Opposition leader). However, I want to know what Dion has said about the Dalai Lama, Tibet and human rights. Anything?

His support for Chinese rights, however weak, is no doubt stronger than his true support for Israel.

[jdobbin]

Funny how no one ever heard it at the time.

For five minutes in the home of an Archbishop, desperately insisting the whole time that he was just talking religion - Martin - a man with no religious beliefs anyone has ever been able to note.

After Harper met him the Opposition was placed in a difficult position, and all three party leaders met him together (Dion succeded in not sitting next to the Dalai Lama despite being the Opposition leader). However, I want to know what Dion has said about the Dalai Lama, Tibet and human rights. Anything?

I don't doubt that you didn't hear any criticism.

That's a pretty funny comment on Martin and religion.

I didn't hear anything from any of the leaders about their meeting with the Dalai Lama. Even Harper said it was symbolic and didn't change the policy of Canada in regards to recognizing China as the government of Tibet.

[Argus]

I don't doubt that you didn't hear any criticism.

That's a pretty funny comment on Martin and religion.

What? Mr. "I love abortions and homsexual marriages" is a religious man? I hear there was even some talk in the senior ranks of the church about excommunicating him.

I didn't hear anything from any of the leaders about their meeting with the Dalai Lama. Even Harper said it was symbolic and didn't change the policy of Canada in regards to recognizing China as the government of Tibet.

Harper has been forthright in his condemnation of human rights abuses in China. Contrast that with the cowardice of the Liberals, who said only for what their corporate paymasters wanted them to say. Chretien even had Canadians illegally arrested to prevent them from embarrassing the Chinese dictator during an APEC summit in BC. It is a black mark on the RCMP that they enforced his wishes, ignoring the constitution and the rule of law. But as I said, the RCMP commisioner was a Liberal Party lackey.

[jdobbin]

What? Mr. "I love abortions and homsexual marriages" is a religious man? I hear there was even some talk in the senior ranks of the church about excommunicating him.

Harper has been forthright in his condemnation of human rights abuses in China. Contrast that with the cowardice of the Liberals, who said only for what their corporate paymasters wanted them to say. Chretien even had Canadians illegally arrested to prevent them from embarrassing the Chinese dictator during an APEC summit in BC. It is a black mark on the RCMP that they enforced his wishes, ignoring the constitution and the rule of law. But as I said, the RCMP commisioner was a Liberal Party lackey.

I know the right wing doesn't like to separate Church and state. It is probably why people shy away from supporting those people are guided by it over all other concerns. Paul Martin is a church goer.

As for Chretien, I have not defended him in regards to APEC or Chinese policies. However, let's be clear, Harper hasn't changed the policy on Tibet. His meeting was symbolic. Most of the time he doesn't even talk to China or let officials communicate with China. And this occurred even before a Canadian was kidnapped and imprisoned in China.

[Argus]

His support for Chinese rights, however weak, is no doubt stronger than his true support for Israel.

Harper is vocal in his support for Israel, a democracy in the middle east, simply because he sees that as the right thing to do. The Liberals liked to play to the ethnic vote - ie, the Muslim vote.

[Argus]

I know the right wing doesn't like to separate Church and state. It is probably why people shy away from supporting those people are guided by it over all other concerns. Paul Martin is a church goer.

Martin is a church-goer in the same way that George Bush is a church goer. I don't think either of them actually believe in anything, and certainly neither acts much like a Christian ought to.

I'm not a church goer. But frankly, I find it offensive that a man who proclaims himself one, who insists he's a believing Catholic, nevertheless ridiculous, mocks and derides his opponents for agreeing with his own church. I mean, if you have such disdain for the basic tenets of the Catholic Church why do you keep going? Find another church, one of those feel-good churches with no moral requirements, like the United Church.

As for Chretien, I have not defended him in regards to APEC or Chinese policies.

How could you? I mean, even if you wanted to?

Nor have you criticized him, though. When I was a PCer I came to loath Mulroney and said so openly. I abandoned the party over its lack of honesty, integrity and abandonment of conservative ideals. You cling wholeheartedly to your party regardless of what it or its smug, disingenuous leaders do.

However, let's be clear, Harper hasn't changed the policy on Tibet. His meeting was symbolic. Most of the time he doesn't even talk to China or let officials communicate with China. And this occurred even before a Canadian was kidnapped and imprisoned in China.

I'll put Harper's repeated criticism of China up against Chretien sycophantic smiling and putting his arms around the Chinese dictator, and Martin's cowardly silence any time.

And weren't you going to tell us about Dion's strong commitment to human rights?

Edited December 24, 2007 by Argus

[kitchenerlrt]

From Conservatives, yes, not from Liberals. Liberals don't care about human rights in Canada so it's hard to figure why they would care about human rights elsewhere.

The Liberals don't care for human rights in Canada? That's funny, considering they created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and have played such a major role in Human Rights in the world.

[White Doors]

The Liberals don't care for human rights in Canada? That's funny, considering they created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and have played such a major role in Human Rights in the world.

What role is that?

[Michael Bluth]

The Liberals don't care for human rights in Canada? That's funny, considering they created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and have played such a major role in Human Rights in the world.

The emasculated Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the notwithstanding clause?

Any concrete example of this 'major role' internationally?

A commitment is putting words into action. We all know the Liberals have filled countless international fora with empty rhetoric. Let's see some action.

[jdobbin]

Martin is a church-goer in the same way that George Bush is a church goer. I don't think either of them actually believe in anything, and certainly neither acts much like a Christian ought to.

I'm not a church goer. But frankly, I find it offensive that a man who proclaims himself one, who insists he's a believing Catholic, nevertheless ridiculous, mocks and derides his opponents for agreeing with his own church. I mean, if you have such disdain for the basic tenets of the Catholic Church why do you keep going? Find another church, one of those feel-good churches with no moral requirements, like the United Church.

How could you? I mean, even if you wanted to?

Nor have you criticized him, though. When I was a PCer I came to loath Mulroney and said so openly. I abandoned the party over its lack of honesty, integrity and abandonment of conservative ideals. You cling wholeheartedly to your party regardless of what it or its smug, disingenuous leaders do.

I'll put Harper's repeated criticism of China up against Chretien sycophantic smiling and putting his arms around the Chinese dictator, and Martin's cowardly silence any time.

And weren't you going to tell us about Dion's strong commitment to human rights?

I guess we have your viewpoint on religion and religious organizations.

I personally liked Chretien through most of his time in office. I disagreed with several of his policies over the years and more vehemently later on in his last term. However, there was no way I was going to back the PCs who basically walloped Manitoba when Mulroney was in office. I looked into the Reform party and while I found Manning to be mostly a decent man, some of people that ran for his party were stark staring fringers. Ditto when the Alliance was around. They ran Betty Granger in my riding and she drew so much notice for her views than even her fellow right wingers distanced themselves.

Harper doesn't seem to have lines of discussion open with China. Many of the official lines closed even before China took a Canadian prisoner. Harper's focus on human rights in China is curiously focused. It is odd considering how his government brushes aside just as bad or worse abuses elsewhere...including Afghanistan.

I didn't hear much from Harper on human rights prior to being prime minister.