Remember all the past lies/scandals from the Federal Liberals

[Moonbox]

I guess the cons would like us to think about some past liberal transgressions committed by people who are no longer in the party so we will forget about all the CURRENT lies and scandals the cons are involved in right now.

You're basically saying that past liberal transgressions don't matter because the main offenders are gone now. Yet then you bring up Bernier. Umm....?

Remember his antics in the house? The book of dirty tricks?? The bernier security issues? The cadman affair? The cheating in the last election and overspending?? Breaking his own fixed election date law?? I could go on and on too, but my points would actually have some relevance considering these people are all still in the conservative party and seeking re-election!

The Cadman affair was balogna cooked up by the Liberal government. Cadman himself said he wasn't bribed. That's really all there should be to it.

The fixed election date is also irrelevant, because Harper had a minority and Dion had indicated he was going to bring the government down at some point anyways. What you're saying is that Harper, knowing that his opponent did not intend to allow him to continue to the fixed election date, should wait for a time of Dion's choosing that would be best for the Liberals for the next election to be held. I think you MIGHT be a little biased if you think anyone reasonable would be expected to do that. He broke no law.

Your supposed 'antics' and 'dirty tricks' are nothing but rhetoric and have no relevance to this discussion, as you really provided no explanation. Your declaration of cheating is baseless as well. So far all we have are allegations and the Liberals right now are flinging those in every direction. Until it's determined by third party authorities to be 'proven' that's all they are.

What the Liberals, and people like you, fail to do at every turn, is reason out your opinions and actions.

You're quite willing to bleat like sheep to your shephard's (the Liberal party and its leaders) tune, but asked to support anything you're saying and most of the time we get little more than angry key-board pounding saying, "I THINK the conservative are crooked" and "Harper is George Bush in disguise."

[normanchateau]

So we should be home from Afghanistan then?

I notice none of the Harper supporters have answered this question. No doubt they realize that a majority of Canadians oppose the mission. But apparently the wishes of the majority are only important when it comes to the rights of bible thumpers, religious nuts and social conservatives to discriminate against other Canadians.

[AngusThermopyle]

So we should be home from Afghanistan then?

The better question would be, "so the liberals should have never sent us to Afghanistan in the first place?"

I notice none of the Harper bashers like to acknowledge this fact. When they do its glossed over and deemed unimportant. My my.

[M.Dancer]

The better question would be, "so the liberals should have never sent us to Afghanistan in the first place?"

I notice none of the Harper bashers like to acknowledge this fact. When they do its glossed over and deemed unimportant. My my.

A question is not a fact. In this case it is merely an opinion suitable for glossing over.

[Ontario Loyalist]

If you refuse to do some research before the election then you are just another brainwashed Easterner Canadian that follows the lemmings over the cliff.

Not another Albertan...

[normanchateau]

"so the liberals should have never sent us to Afghanistan in the first place?"

I notice none of the Harper bashers like to acknowledge this fact.

Chretien was an utter fool to send us into Afghanistan and Dion was absolutely wrong to agree to extend the mission by two years, especially since Canadians oppose the mission.

Now let's return to my question of should we remain in Afghanistan?

I notice none of the Harper supporters have answered this question. No doubt they realize that a majority of Canadians oppose the mission. But apparently the wishes of the majority are only important when it comes to the rights of bible thumpers, religious nuts and social conservatives to discriminate against other Canadians.

[guyser]

Yes the Liberals shoved it down the throats of 68% of Canadian voters

I suppose you didnt like the taste ?

Use bigger letters troll.....

[M.Dancer]

No doubt they realize that a majority of Canadians oppose the mission.

I thought I already corrected you on this.

They do not oppose the mission. What they want is a clear time table for withdrawal, which they have.

[Shakeyhands]

I thought I already corrected you on this.

They do not oppose the mission. What they want is a clear time table for withdrawal, which they have.

We do?

[AngusThermopyle]

Now let's return to my question of should we remain in Afghanistan?

Yes we should, as long as it takes.

What kind of people would we be if we just turned our backs and threw the Afghan people to the wolves?

[normanchateau]

I thought I already corrected you on this.

They do not oppose the mission.

You're confused once again. Canadians do oppose the mission and I previously pointed this out to you and provided the evidence.

Here's the evidence once again. See if you can somehow twist this Harper-like into evidence that Canadians support the mission

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/poll-afghan.html

So given that a majority of Canadians do not approve of Canada's military action in Afghanistan, should Canada pull out?

I notice none of the Harper supporters have answered this question. No doubt they realize that a majority of Canadians oppose the mission. But apparently the wishes of the majority are only important when it comes to the rights of bible thumpers, religious nuts and social conservatives to discriminate against other Canadians

[normanchateau]

Yes we should, as long as it takes.

Thank you for answering.

Even though a majority of Canadians oppose the mission?

[marksman]

Apples and oranges. Show me an example of a democracy where the people as a majority voted to allow lynch mobs.

You need to do better than that.

Canadians - or at least British Columbians - as a majority wanted internment camps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment

Saying the government should do whatever the majority wants is as dangerous as saying the government should do whatever it wants regardless of the opinions of Canadians. That's why something like the Charter is a good idea - it gives guidance for when to listen to the majority and when to defend the rights of the minority. Like it or not the rights of a minority do sometimes need defending from the majority.

[Moonbox]

The majority of Canadians don't know anything about the situation.

This is not the first place I've tried to explain this.

You cannot overthrow a hostile foreign government, occupy the country and fight off an insurgency for years in a mission to stabilize the region, and then just leave before you've finished the job.

Why? Because the insurgency you've been fighting will end up taking control of the government. You'd be left with a country controlled by the murderers and crooks you'd been fighting for the last several years and you'd be abandoning the people living there that actually had hoped to turn the country around. What's worse is that these same murderers and crooks hold grudges and likely won't leave you alone even after you leave.

Make no mistake. Afghanistan is not Iraq.

A democratic government does not have to do what the majority wants it to, nor should it. The majority of Canadians don't know the first thing about Canadian politics and believe what they want to belive.

[marksman]

Once again, Harper did not break the law. As written the law allows an escape clause on fixed election dates so long as certain criteria are met. These criteria were met, therefore no law was broken.

It would be better if you could get off your broken record kick, especially since the information you provide is invalid.

What's this escape clause? What're the criteria? If Harper is currently meeting "the escape clause" criteria then the fixed election date legislation is worthless. Repeal it now since any PM at any time can call an election whenever they want.

Harper promised fixed dates so that PMs couldn't call an election when the polls showed it would be favourable for the PM. And then he went and called an election when the polls showed it would be favourable for him. No law was broken but a promise was.

[AngusThermopyle]

Actually the provincial governments of BC, Ontario, and the Maritimes also have fixed dates (there are a couple more provinces but I can't remember which ones right now) each of them also has an escape clause in the fixed election date laws. No different in essence from the federal one.

No law was broken but a promise was.

What promise? Care to post a link pointing to where Harper made this nebulous promise?

[Wild Bill]

Canadians - or at least British Columbians - as a majority wanted internment camps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment

Saying the government should do whatever the majority wants is as dangerous as saying the government should do whatever it wants regardless of the opinions of Canadians. That's why something like the Charter is a good idea - it gives guidance for when to listen to the majority and when to defend the rights of the minority. Like it or not the rights of a minority do sometimes need defending from the majority.

Apples and oranges. Internment is not death. In the case of the Japanese Canadians the act was obviously racist but still, hindsight is 20/20. Up until Pearl Harbour there was no internments. The camps were considered prudent security against spies and fifth columnists. That the act later became a sleazy way to steal their property was a separate issue.

Can you cite any polls or referenda to prove that interment was approved by a majority of citizens? Even if so, I would support their right to be wrong. If I had lived at the time I would have tried political protest. I may even have sheltered Canadians of Japanese descent.

However, I would never have advocated removing the right of the majority to choose.

[gc1765]

They are all cut from the same material.

Nothing like sweeping generalizations...

By the way, does that mean all Conservatives are cut from the same material?

[marksman]

Apples and oranges. Internment is not death. In the case of the Japanese Canadians the act was obviously racist but still, hindsight is 20/20. Up until Pearl Harbour there was no internments. The camps were considered prudent security against spies and fifth columnists. That the act later became a sleazy way to steal their property was a separate issue.

Can you cite any polls or referenda to prove that interment was approved by a majority of citizens? Even if so, I would support their right to be wrong. If I had lived at the time I would have tried political protest. I may even have sheltered Canadians of Japanese descent.

However, I would never have advocated removing the right of the majority to choose.

Your apples and oranges defence looks like an attempt to avoid the problems with your argument. The issue was that approving same-sex marriages was against the majority opinion of Canadians. Same-sex marriage is not death. Therefore apples to apples. Your requirement that an example include death is requiring someone to compare apples to oranges.

Plus death isn't the only thing we think is worthy of protecting people from in Canada. We've got rights aside from the right not to be killed.

You'd have to read the link to see that it wasn't hindsight that was involved. Even at the time the military and RCMP didn't see a security threat but the government bowed to public pressure.

1 problem with your argument is that it sounds nice to say "I support the majority's right to be wrong" but that doesn't help the people whose rights are being done away with. If the government isn't there to protect the rights of Canadians then what's the point?

A 2nd problem is that we've got a constitution that protects rights. If the majority wants to do away with rights then they'll need to change the constitution first. I'm not sure there's a majority of Canadians who want to rewrite equality rights in the constitution.

[marksman]

Actually the provincial governments of BC, Ontario, and the Maritimes also have fixed dates (there are a couple more provinces but I can't remember which ones right now) each of them also has an escape clause in the fixed election date laws. No different in essence from the federal one.

What promise? Care to post a link pointing to where Harper made this nebulous promise?

And if those provincial laws can also be avoided simply by saying "government isn't working" while on summer vacation then they're also useless in my opinion.

It's hard to interpret Harper's quotes as saying anything other than that he won't call an early election

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ote-060526.html

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said.

"But fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage."

He said he was willing to give up a prerogative traditionally enjoyed by sitting prime ministers.

He added: "A federal campaign is very difficult thing to organize, so this is a useful advantage that we're willing to give up."

So he said he's giving up the advantage but then he times this election when polls are in his favour. Doesn't look like he gave up much at all.

[Wild Bill]

Your apples and oranges defence looks like an attempt to avoid the problems with your argument. The issue was that approving same-sex marriages was against the majority opinion of Canadians. Same-sex marriage is not death. Therefore apples to apples. Your requirement that an example include death is requiring someone to compare apples to oranges.

Plus death isn't the only thing we think is worthy of protecting people from in Canada. We've got rights aside from the right not to be killed.

You'd have to read the link to see that it wasn't hindsight that was involved. Even at the time the military and RCMP didn't see a security threat but the government bowed to public pressure.

1 problem with your argument is that it sounds nice to say "I support the majority's right to be wrong" but that doesn't help the people whose rights are being done away with. If the government isn't there to protect the rights of Canadians then what's the point?

A 2nd problem is that we've got a constitution that protects rights. If the majority wants to do away with rights then they'll need to change the constitution first. I'm not sure there's a majority of Canadians who want to rewrite equality rights in the constitution.

You've got the horse and the cart mixed up! Once it's in the constitution or Charter of Rights it's Law. Theoretically the people have chosen. That's supposed to be how it got to be a law!

Mind you, it would be a completely different thread to discuss how true and democratic that process actually is, or was.

Anyhow, I was referring to the people's right to make their own laws. The debate on same sex marriage came before the Law was enacted.

Or will you tell me that I was wrong about that as well?

[marksman]

You've got the horse and the cart mixed up! Once it's in the constitution or Charter of Rights it's Law. Theoretically the people have chosen. That's supposed to be how it got to be a law!

Mind you, it would be a completely different thread to discuss how true and democratic that process actually is, or was.

Anyhow, I was referring to the people's right to make their own laws. The debate on same sex marriage came before the Law was enacted.

Or will you tell me that I was wrong about that as well?

The meaning of your post isn't clear to me - especially what's the horse and what's the cart? And when you say "The debate on same sex marriage came before the Law was enacted." what "Law" are you talking about?

We have rights in the constitution. If the majority wants a law that violates the constitution then the government can't make that law unless they're willing to change the constitution.

I'm also not sure how your response deals with the fact that the government must protect the rights of all Canadians not just the majority no matter what that majority wants.

[capricorn]

Now let's return to my question of should we remain in Afghanistan?

I notice none of the Harper supporters have answered this question. No doubt they realize that a majority of Canadians oppose the mission. But apparently the wishes of the majority are only important when it comes to the rights of bible thumpers, religious nuts and social conservatives to discriminate against other Canadians.

I'm a Conservative supporter and I don't fit into your "bible thumper/religious nut/socon" class that you say discriminates against other Canadians. I'm sure there are a few more like me here on MLW. But I will answer your question.

I have an understanding of the scope of the mission and the timetable we are committed to. Our country, via Parliament, is committed militarily to Afghanistan until February 2011. Yes, Canadians are becoming increasingly discontented about our involvement in Afghanistan. Yet, I believe that most Canadians are smart enough to realize that our politicians made a commitment and, we must not cut and run before our NATO obligations are met. Canadians are understandably sad that we are taking casualties in a far away and dangerous land. I too have a heavy heart when I think of those loses. As the number of casualties increases so does the feeling throughout Canada that we should pull out from Afghanistan.

I want our military to be brought home according to the timetable agreed to by our Parliament. At that time, we can do so with our heads up high.

[DrGreenthumb]

, we must not cut and run

Geez someone's been listening to too many bush speeches, just like our useless Harper.

[blueblood]

Geez someone's been listening to too many bush speeches, just like our useless Harper.

Let's play the fear tactics game then. At least our useless Harper doesn't have the support and endorsement of terrorists, I wonder what party that would be, starts with an N. Looks like we're winning when the Taliban is trying to influence the political process so we leave earlier, they can't force us out