Harper's End of Year Speech

[Michael Bluth]

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.

Reform and Alliance both had their share of nutbar problems. I voted PC in 2000 because of the nutbar Alliance leader.

That is one of the positive things of Harper's leadership. No nutbars....

[kitchenerlrt]

What role is that?

Sponsoring the United Nation's call for the abolition of the death penalty, ratified the UN's "Discrimination Against Women", sent our troops on peacekeeping missions, and created a reputation that has caused people from many countries to put our flag on their bags/hats ect.

We all know the Liberals have filled countless international fora with empty rhetoric. Let's see some action.

I havn't seen much action on human rights from the Conservatives. So far, they've cut funding to womans programs, refused to honour the Kelowna Accord, changed Canada's stance on Canadians facing the death penalty abroad, and have chosen not to sponsor a UN motion against the Death Penalty, even thought we've sponsored that event for quite a while.

Edited December 24, 2007 by kitchenerlrt

[Michael Bluth]

Sponsoring the United Nation's call for the abolition of the death penalty, ratified the UN's "Discrimination Against Women", sent our troops on peacekeeping missions, and created a reputation that has caused people from many countries to put our flag on their bags/hats ect.

More and more empty rhetoric.

"Many countries to put our flag on their bags"? Actual evidence of people from three countries who have done so. Please.

So far, they've cut all funding to womans programs

All funding? That's a flat out lie.

refused to honour the Kelowna Accord,

The Kelowna Accord never came into effect. The Conservatives campaigned against it two years ago. Perhaps they won the election based on this issue?

[kitchenerlrt]

More and more empty rhetoric.

"Many countries to put our flag on their bags"? Actual evidence of people from three countries who have done so. Please.

All funding? That's a flat out lie.

The Kelowna Accord never came into effect. The Conservatives campaigned against it two years ago. Perhaps they won the election based on this issue?

Regarding the flags, a lot of Americans put the maple leaf on their belongings. Just the past year, I travelled to Europe, and saw a few maple leaf flags on their bags. I asked where they were from, and they said Germany, and Austria. You can ask people who've done a bit of travelling, and they'll also tell you that quite a few people who aren't Canadian, wear the flag.

Regarding the cuts to womans programs, I made an error when I said they cut all funding, but they did cut a substantial amount, that resulted in womans groups from across the country angry with the minister responsible for Womans issues.

I highly doubt that the Conservatives were elected because of their opposition to respecting Aboriginal rights.

[Michael Bluth]

Regarding the flags, a lot of Americans put the maple leaf on their belongings. Just the past year, I travelled to Europe, and saw a few maple leaf flags on their bags. I asked where they were from, and they said Germany, and Austria. You can ask people who've done a bit of travelling, and they'll also tell you that quite a few people who aren't Canadian, wear the flag.

Yeah, *many* countries. It makes sense to say you are from a country that doesn't share the same language with you. So no actual evidence for that assertion. We try and deal with fact and evidence here.

Regarding the cuts to womans programs, I made an error when I said they cut all funding, but they did cut a substantial amount, that resulted in womans groups from across the country angry with the minister responsible for Womans issues.

Which programs. Again, we try and deal with fact and evidence here.

I highly doubt that the Conservatives were elected because of their opposition to respecting Aboriginal rights.

It was a campaign promise they made.

Perhaps if you had offered your insights to the Liberal Party of Canada two years ago then you would have lead them to victory.

[margrace]

It would be nice Micheal if you showed us how Kitchenerirt was wrong in fact instead of attacking that persons beliefs. Instead you insist you are right with no more back up than you accuse that person of. This way of talking is not debating it is bullying.

Perhaps you could show us proof that Harper did not cut women's programs rather than attacking Kichenerirts belief that they did. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to attack that person personally.

Edited December 24, 2007 by margrace

[Michael Bluth]

This way of talking is not debating it is bullying.

Perhaps you could show us proof that Harper did not cut women's programs rather than attacking Kichenerirts belief that they did. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to attack that person personally.

You can't prove a negative.

How can I prove what Harper didn't do?

True debate is founded in honesty.

How was it a personal attack for asking the person to substantiate their claims of fact with evidence?

What was the personal attack?

Edited December 24, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[margrace]

All you have to do Micheal is find out what the budget was for that department the last year of the liberals and tell us what is is now. I don't know how Kitchen felt about your post but I would certainly feel bullied for expressing my opinon. I don't know how one proves what a bully is if the other person has no concept of it.

Edited December 24, 2007 by margrace

[Michael Bluth]

All you have to do Micheal is find out what the budget was for that department the last year of the liberals and tell us what is is now. I don't know how Kitchen felt about your post but I would certainly feel bullied for expressing my opinon. I don't know how one proves what a bully is if the other person has no concept of it.

Seems like Keempitsimple took care of the evidence for me.

I'm not sure how Kitchener felt. But if he is going to post outright lies then I will point them out.

Take a look at this board. dobbin posts repeatedly and completely ignores any dissenting opinions.

Have you taken umbrage with his posts? If not, why not?

Edited December 24, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[White Doors]

deleted

Edited December 24, 2007 by White Doors

[White Doors]

Sponsoring the United Nation's call for the abolition of the death penalty, ratified the UN's "Discrimination Against Women", sent our troops on peacekeeping missions, and created a reputation that has caused people from many countries to put our flag on their bags/hats ect.

peacekeeping is italicized.. I wonder why? You prefer soldiers have flowers in the end of their weapons do you?

How then do you feel about Martin changing the role in Afghanistan to a more robust combat role? How do you reconcile that?

It's hard for some people to hate you when you make a stand for nothing.

Do not confuse convenience with admiration.

Where were the liberals on racist UN votes against Israel? Durban?

Oh, yes - that's right, they abstained from voting. How proud that made me feel..

The Conservatives do not abstain, they vote against the yearly anti-semetic votes.

They stand up for the only true democracy in the middle east.

How was Martin's and Chretiens stand on human rights in China? How is Harpers?

Who's stance is more popular world wide? Who's stance is right?

[jbg]

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.

I was wondering if someone, maybe jdobbin's the man, who could explain what governing and guiding principals the Liberal Party has.

[Michael Bluth]

I was wondering if someone, maybe jdobbin's the man, who could explain what governing and guiding principals the Liberal Party has.

Doubtful.

The Liberals haven't been guided by principles in over 25 years.

Besides certain posters are just here to attack the Government. If somebody isn't playing the way they like they ignore them. It's interesting how their insults and slanderous behaviour have lasted for so long.

[jbg]

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.

OK, let's examine the Charter more closely:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it

subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

© freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Doesn't that eviscerate most of the rights? Compare to:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall

make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Doesn't the Charter look like swiss cheese by comparison?

(from Charter)

LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Compare to:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Protection for right to own property?

Case made. The Liberal "contribution" was and is dubious.

[bush_cheney2004]

OK, let's examine the Charter more closely:

...Doesn't the Charter look like swiss cheese by comparison?

Not quite "Swiss cheese", but the limitation and notwithstanding clauses are certainly interesting constructs within a "constitution" and "charter of rights". This is one of the reasons I maintain that Americans have "more" rights than Canadians.

[jdobbin]

Regarding the cuts to womans programs, I made an error when I said they cut all funding, but they did cut a substantial amount, that resulted in womans groups from across the country angry with the minister responsible for Womans issues.

I think more women with families are upset about the total failure of the Conservative daycare program which even they admit cannot create daycare spaces. It is "undoable" according to the minister responsible.

[jdobbin]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to attack that person personally.

I have mentioned to the new poster to expect the personal attacks. I just recommend reporting them as they happen.

As far as cuts go, the Tories cut women's advocacy groups.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/04/tory-funding.html

Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, argues that without the funding the government provided her group, it would never have successfully struck down the use of Muslim shariah law in Ontario family court cases.

"That makes it very difficult, because if you don't lobby and you don't advocate, you're not going to make systemic changes," said Hogben.

Edited December 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

peacekeeping is italicized.. I wonder why? You prefer soldiers have flowers in the end of their weapons do you?

How then do you feel about Martin changing the role in Afghanistan to a more robust combat role?

Where were the liberals on racist UN votes against Israel? Durban?

Oh, yes - that's right, they abstained from voting. How proud that made me feel..

The Conservatives do not abstain, they vote against the yearly anti-semetic votes.

They stand up for the only true democracy in the middle east.

How was Martin's and Chretiens stand on human rights in China? How is Harpers?

Who's stance is more popular world wide? Who's stance is right?

Martin had a deadline for our participation in southern Afghanistan. Harper extended it and plans to extend again to 2012 if he has his majority.

What racist votes are you referring to?

Harper has not changed the policy on Tibet. Martin criticized human rights violations in China. Chretien was not as good in that regard.

[kitchenerlrt]

I'm not sure how Kitchener felt. But if he is going to post outright lies then I will point them out.

I corrected my error, and edited my post. However, I didn't lie when I said the Conservatives have cut funding to woman groups across the country.

peacekeeping is italicized.. I wonder why? You prefer soldiers have flowers in the end of their weapons do you?

How was Martin's and Chretiens stand on human rights in China? How is Harpers?

Who's stance is more popular world wide? Who's stance is right?

The reason I italicized peacekeeping is because that's what we were doing under Martin and Chretien. Do I prefer soldiers with flowers at the end of their weapons? Yes, if were living in a world that doesn't include wars. Under Harper, deaths of soldiers have sharply increased, and we've moved away from our peacekeeping/rebuilding missions to a combat mission, like the United States.

[Michael Bluth]

I corrected my error, and edited my post.

Which was appreciated and is noted.

Just remember the belligerence of some posters who have pm'd you as to what to expect is not a great model to follow.

His actions have gotten him warnings to prevent future slanderous behaviour.

Keep it honest and don't insult anyone personally.

If you felt a personal insult was intended I apologize and will deal with it further in PMs if you like.

[kitchenerlrt]

Keep it honest and don't insult anyone personally.

If you felt a personal insult was intended I apologize and will deal with it further in PMs if you like.

Will do, and the same goes for you . Also, don't worry about the insults.

[bush_cheney2004]

The reason I italicized peacekeeping is because that's what we were doing under Martin and Chretien. Do I prefer soldiers with flowers at the end of their weapons? Yes, if were living in a world that doesn't include wars. Under Harper, deaths of soldiers have sharply increased, and we've moved away from our peacekeeping/rebuilding missions to a combat mission, like the United States.

Under PM's Chretien/Martin, Canada's peacekeeping included 80 days of sustained NATO bombing against sovereign Serbia without UNSC approval and the overthrow of democratically elected Jean Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. The earlier missions in Afghanistan were hardly peacekeeping.

General Hillier reminded Canada of this reality.

Edited December 25, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

Under Harper, deaths of soldiers have sharply increased, and we've moved away from our peacekeeping/rebuilding missions to a combat mission, like the United States.

I guess every post needs at least a leavening of anti-Americanism, eh?

[jdobbin]

Will do, and the same goes for you . Also, don't worry about the insults.

There is always the ignore button. Some posters will insult you regardless and often they aren't worth engaging.

Not all Tories are like this but it is a case of "it comes down from the top." Harper has shown his penchant for the jugular and that is why the National Post mused last week that he might be "too mean" to gain a majority.

[Michael Bluth]

Will do, and the same goes for you . Also, don't worry about the insults.

Exactly. As you saw the first response to this post of yours was a thinly-veiled, childish and impotent attack.

Certain posters here flaunt the rules repeatedly yet still stick around.