Stephen Harper Is Just Like George Bush

[WIP]

Stephen Harper is just like George Bush.

Just like Bush, Harper loves preemptive wars and an aggressive foreign policy. On Iraq, Harper said, "I think we should work closely with the Americans." If Harper had a majority, Canada would be taking part in the illegal, immoral, unnecessary and unilateral smashing of Iraq. Harper is a blind, faithful lapdog of the disastrously destructive American Neo-Conservative movement. All wars launched by Republican administrations are to be unquestionably supported by Canada, according to blind Bush-Bot Harper. 100,000 dead civilians and 5000 dead soldiers are easily tolerated by Harper.

Now that it looks like Harper is going to get his majority and have a free hand to put everything on his wishlist into policy, we'll see how far he his willing to go to keep his Republican friends happy! Now that Afghanistan is turning into a quagmire, will he have the guts to reverse course and pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan? If he really supports the troops, that would be the right thing to do.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now that it looks like Harper is going to get his majority and have a free hand to put everything on his wishlist into policy, we'll see how far he his willing to go to keep his Republican friends happy! Now that Afghanistan is turning into a quagmire, will he have the guts to reverse course and pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan? If he really supports the troops, that would be the right thing to do.

Yes...in 2011. "Bush" will be gone by January of 2009, so I guess your alleged "poodle" will be lost.

[WIP]

Yes...in 2011. "Bush" will be gone by January of 2009, so I guess your alleged "poodle" will be lost.

That 2011 better be one campaign promise he keeps! The only reason he offered up that number was that his pollsters have already told him that a majority of Canadians see Afghanistan as another Vietnam, and want the troops out. If he said: "we'll stand down when they stand up" or "50, 100 years, we have to stay until the job gets done" his poll numbers would have tanked.

And speaking of Mr. hundred years war, McCain is an even bigger nutcase warhawk than George Bush is. If he becomes president, he'll be doing whatever strongarm tactics he can find to keep NATO allies in Afghanistan.

[capricorn]

That 2011 better be one campaign promise he keeps!

Indeed.

The only reason he offered up that number was that his pollsters have already told him that a majority of Canadians see Afghanistan as another Vietnam, and want the troops out.

The stand Harper took on Afghanistan in this election is consistent with where Harper wants to take conservatism in this country, as he admitted openly. One plank of this plan is to listen more closely to Canadians.

"I said for a long time, and nobody listened to me for the longest time, that my goal was to make conservatism the natural governing philosophy of the country. At that time we didn't have a single Conservative party. That's what I set out to do. Now, two things have to happen -- firstly, conservatives had to get our act together, which we did. The second thing that has to happen is we have to engage in a dialogue with Canadians. That means on some things moving the party to the centre. I think we're doing that.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...hen-harper.aspx

Why is the fact that the Conservative party is listening to the population, i.e. on the Afghanistan pullout, interpreted as pandering and not considered just good governance? Mind you, if we asked the man/woman on the street, chances are they wouldn't go to our length of interpreting Harper's motive for taking a firm stand on the pullout, only that he/she agrees.

[bush_cheney2004]

That 2011 better be one campaign promise he keeps! The only reason he offered up that number was that his pollsters have already told him that a majority of Canadians see Afghanistan as another Vietnam, and want the troops out. If he said: "we'll stand down when they stand up" or "50, 100 years, we have to stay until the job gets done" his poll numbers would have tanked.

The "majority of Canadians" means nothing in your political landscape.

And speaking of Mr. hundred years war, McCain is an even bigger nutcase warhawk than George Bush is. If he becomes president, he'll be doing whatever strongarm tactics he can find to keep NATO allies in Afghanistan.

And it will always be pathetic when Canada's actions are dependent on another sovereign, regardless of which "majority" or "minority" party makes them. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[Argus]

Yeah Argus accusing someone of behaving childishly is pretty funny. Even though Joesixpack's delivery might be kind of blunt the message he brings isn't far from the truth at all. Most of what he says is true, The far right wing agenda is leaning heavily towards a police state, where the federal government is taking more control over our lives and leaving us with less and less freedom. No matter how stupid people like Argus may think Joesixpack sounds, he is obviously not voting Conservative and that alone puts him far ahead of Argus in the intelligence department.

Yeah, smoke another doobie dude. "Far right wing"? You wouldn't know what a "far right wing" was it if crawled up your leg and bit you where it'd hurt. I can't take tinfoil hat wearers like him and you seriously as you wail and whine like frightened little boys about the "far right wing". The fact is that on the scale of politics which encompasses most of the western political world the Tories and Liberals are so close together ideologically that to the rest of the world there's little discernible difference between them. To the Americans, they're both practically Socialists. To the Swedes, they're both right wing conservatives. That you goofballs are running around with your hands in the air howling that the world might come to the end if Harper gets a majority is ragingly funny given he's considerably to the LEFT of Barrack Obama on most issues.

[wulf42]

But tolerating the innocent civilian deaths as part of the "bad guy targetting" process, simply results in mass orphanization and inevitable resentment from the family members who remain. This serves as FUEL for more Terrorist recruitment.

Try to look at it pragmatically, and not dogmatically.

The problem is that these so called "freedom fighters" are nothing more than dirty animals who will purposely hide among civilian populations and attack Nato troops then run back and hide among the Population so if Nato hits back they will accidently kill innocent civilians then the terrorist's can say "look Nato kills women and children"!!! these are the most cowardly scum of all! won t fight Nato like soldiers! filthy cowards....even the Nazis in ww2 as bad as they were at least came out in uniform and fought as men and didn t hide behind women and children!!

Edited September 14, 2008 by wulf42

[scribblet]

While I do think that Harper models his policies after many Republican policies I don't believe we need to fear that. What we do need to fear is what will happen if he gets a majority and all those extreme right bible-thumpers he silences during the campaign start to think out loud. The ONLY reason Harper keeps them quiet is because he knows that he has to play the middle road in order to get a majority. Once he has a majority, Harper and the CPC will make George W. Bush look like kindergartners. If he get a minority be prepared for a couple of temper tantrums from him.

Not true at all, Harper nor the CPC does not and never has modeled any policy after Republican policies, absolute nonsense.

[White Doors]

I approve of Tasers

I am just like George Bush

Don't Tase me Bro!

[White Doors]

Now that it looks like Harper is going to get his majority and have a free hand to put everything on his wishlist into policy, we'll see how far he his willing to go to keep his Republican friends happy! Now that Afghanistan is turning into a quagmire, will he have the guts to reverse course and pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan? If he really supports the troops, that would be the right thing to do.

Wow, replace Afghanistan with Iraq and we have 2005.

lol

Flee!!! Flee!!

lol

[White Doors]

That 2011 better be one campaign promise he keeps! The only reason he offered up that number was that his pollsters have already told him that a majority of Canadians see Afghanistan as another Vietnam, and want the troops out. If he said: "we'll stand down when they stand up" or "50, 100 years, we have to stay until the job gets done" his poll numbers would have tanked.

And speaking of Mr. hundred years war, McCain is an even bigger nutcase warhawk than George Bush is. If he becomes president, he'll be doing whatever strongarm tactics he can find to keep NATO allies in Afghanistan.

I thought Iraq was the 'other' Vietnam. Keep hoping and it will come true one of these times I guess.

I wonder where else the West can surrender.

If we would have gone into Sudan I'm sure that would have been another 'Vietnam' too and ironically many on the left were calling for that very thing.

[Pliny]

George Bush is not a Neo-con.

As one poster suggested, a little reading might help, but probably not. Joe sounds pretty locked down on his position.

Neocons are not necessary in Canada we are already socialist. Obama would be elected in Canada in a heartbeat - Americans, not being particularly socialist for the most part, will give Obama a tough ride. Neocons will help Obama.

Stephen Harper is friendly to the US, Chretien and the Liberals showed open disrespect and some even despised America under both Clinton and Bush. Clinton was more like Harper than Bush.

Joe is one of those average guys that likes to have the government bully people of whom he disapproves. Just like I like the government to bully people of whom I disapprove - like criminals. The basic problem is one of justice and knowing who the criminals are. Personally, I think they are people who infringe upon the sanctity of person and property and/or initiate force against others - that would include government. So I think criminals are people that take using force, and I don't know, but I believe people like Joe think criminals are people who need to be forced to live the way he deems they should even if that means taking by force - that would make just about everyone a criminal.

What socialists know is illegal for them to do themselves, they get government to do for them, basically. This concept, in my opinion, this penchant for equality, makes it difficult for them to differentiate what actual criminality is - ownership and private property is confused as public property and we all know how public property gets treated.

[eyeball]

The "majority of Canadians" means nothing in your political landscape.

And it will always be pathetic when Canada's actions are dependent on another sovereign, regardless of which "majority" or "minority" party makes them. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Truer words have not been spoken.

That said, if the word majority actually meant something and we did follow our own lead we'd have to stand in your way just as a matter of general principles.

[eyeball]

The basic problem is one of justice and knowing who the criminals are. Personally, I think they are people who infringe upon the sanctity of person and property and/or initiate force against others - that would include government.

Unfortunately people like Harper and Bush seem to think the very worst criminals are those who infringe on their own sanctity and they propose to use the power of the state to force these "criminals" to comply with the initiations of whatever moral collective they claim they represent.

What socialists know is illegal for them to do themselves, they get government to do for them, basically. This concept, in my opinion, this penchant for equality, makes it difficult for them to differentiate what actual criminality is - ownership and private property is confused as public property and we all know how public property gets treated.

Conservatives clearly want the government to use force to make people stop doing things to themselves, and don't seem to have any problem with turning people into criminals too. Of course its bad when individuals try to force one another to do things to themselves against their will but its far worse when state takes a penchant for making everyone behave the same way. Moral engineering is far more utopian than social engineering any day of the week.

I'm a socialist or so I'm told, and I don't have the slightest desire to make the state act the way you seem to think socialists want. Then again you seem to think neo-cons are the new left or something so its really difficult to know where you're coming from.

[capricorn]

I think the opposition parties are making a mistake using Bush in the negative ads against Harper. In many circles, including here on MLW, there are those of the opinion that Harper called the election at this time because he thinks an Obama victory would negatively affect the standing of his party. In their haste to paint Harper as a far right winger, the opposition parties are gearing some of their negative ads to get them to believe that Harper's intention is to bring forward Republican/Bush style policies. This message is also included in stump speeches.

In developing these ads, the opposition may have overlooked something of importance that may negate their message. Bush is not up for re-election and Obama is very much the contender for the presidency. Heck, the majority of Canadians want Obama to win and many genuinely think he will win. We know that there are many Canadians who follow the US elections. As a consequence, when ordinary Canadians see the ads placing Harper and Bush together, what would be their immediate reaction? Would they not think to themselves "That's irrelevant, Bush is gone" or "Obama's gonna win, what's the big deal?" And it won't make a hill of beans difference to those who are already committed to voting for anyone but Harper.

The other thing about using Bush in their ads is that it resurrects the "scary" and "hidden agenda" messages used in the 2000 and 2006 campaigns. Canadians have seen Harper in action and if the polls are anywhere near accurate, the Bush/Harper/evil scare tactic may be falling on many deaf ears.

This makes me wonder about the tactical usefulness of using Bush in negative ads in this campaign. I'm not disputing some people will be swayed by these ads. But with the high cost of advertising I'm not so sure this is the way to go to convince Canadians not to vote for the Conservatives.

Edited September 15, 2008 by capricorn

[cybercoma]

And that's why the Harris-Decima poll from 8-11 Sept had the Conservatives at 41%.

[DrGreenthumb]

Indeed.

The stand Harper took on Afghanistan in this election is consistent with where Harper wants to take conservatism in this country, as he admitted openly. One plank of this plan is to listen more closely to Canadians.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...hen-harper.aspx

Why is the fact that the Conservative party is listening to the population, i.e. on the Afghanistan pullout, interpreted as pandering and not considered just good governance? Mind you, if we asked the man/woman on the street, chances are they wouldn't go to our length of interpreting Harper's motive for taking a firm stand on the pullout, only that he/she agrees.

There is just no reason to trust Harper on the afganistan "fixed date " pullout. To Harper fixed date just means the fixed date unless he changes his mind because its politically advantages for him to do so. Harper will find some excuse to keep us at war. If its not afganistan it will be iran or syria. he will just invent some loophole or say the conservatives "interpret " the promise to mean something else. Argus and other conservatives will praise his ability to change his mind as his ability to adapt to the changing situation or some such bullshit.

[DrGreenthumb]

Indeed.

The stand Harper took on Afghanistan in this election is consistent with where Harper wants to take conservatism in this country, as he admitted openly. One plank of this plan is to listen more closely to Canadians.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...hen-harper.aspx

Why is the fact that the Conservative party is listening to the population, i.e. on the Afghanistan pullout, interpreted as pandering and not considered just good governance? Mind you, if we asked the man/woman on the street, chances are they wouldn't go to our length of interpreting Harper's motive for taking a firm stand on the pullout, only that he/she agrees.

I predict that the Canadian bodycount will reach 300 before Harper even STARTS to remove ANY troops.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The other thing about using Bush in their ads is that it resurrects the "scary" and "hidden agenda" messages used in the 2000 and 2006 campaigns. Canadians have seen Harper in action and if the polls are anywhere near accurate, the Bush/Harper/evil scare tactic may be falling on many deaf ears.

This NDP ad in Quebec borders on the bizarre...what the hell kind of neurosis would people need to have for such an ad to be effective? Bring back the jackboots and marching drums!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkb_GgsOD4Q

Edited September 15, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Joesixpack5]

You know, it's good that someone so obviously young has an interest in politics. Why don't you just shut up and read a little and maybe you'll learn something. All you're doing now is sounding like a nitwit. Even the Liberals are laughing at you.

NDP and Green party voters don't give a darn about the old, 2-party dinosaurs.

Center-Left Libertarian Social-Democracy is the fastest growing political philosophy.

Cons are stuck in the 1950's, and many Liberals have no identity at all.

[Joesixpack5]

The Conservative partisan effort deserves far more credit that it has in the past. However, having said that the Liberals have received far more credit than they deserve. In addition the far right and the far left serve their purposes as well and yet very few citizens recognize the most harsh reality of the nation in political terms. That is the cold reality that our system of government is itself flawed and antiquated.

What this nation needs is not more policy but a means of effective government. There lays our greatest problem. Confederation is a complex government model that fails to balance the needs of the regions with the needs of the citizens. The partisan platforms all seek to nitpick policy alternatives for the duration of the election and yet upon a public declaration of support those same partisan positions have no obligation to implement the policies they campaigned on. Further to that the public has no means available to hold those responsible for the fraud to be held in any way accountable. So the question needs to be asked what difference alternative policies really have during election campaigns?

The problem before us is not one of merely choosing a government to implement policy but determining a means of attaining a responsible and effective set of public representatives. This plays into the trust factor of candidates and parties. Citizens deserve a set of representatives dedicated to the reform of government. Citizens need a government intent upon providing the services and programs that the public desires. Citizens need a government that is accountable to the public and acts in a manner that would be considered obedient to the will of the public.

The long and the short of the problem is that citizens need representatives to be sent to Ottawa not partisan hacks.

There will always be partisanship, anyone who pretends otherwise ignores human nature.

The question is, should voters try to expand the political spectrum BEYOND the fraudulent and false alternatives offered historically ? "Vote Neo-Liberal OR Neo-Conservative" is a fallacy which has set up a 2-party monopoly/dictatorship in North America decade after decade. It's time for some rational 3rd/4th alternatives. The Neo-Lib vs. Neo-Con false alternative fallacy is the cause of most of the problems seen in North America and the cause of alot of international instability, poverty, conflict and death.

The empirical evidence from Scandinavia and Northern Europe proves that center-left policies reduce poverty, reduce war, reduce persecution, enhance behavioural liberty and solves problems pragmatically/scientifically.

[Joesixpack5]

In an idealistic world that would be achievable. However, in our reality, in our system, the system itself is inherently corrupt. It isn't even salvageable as many a politician has promised reforms - promised open and accountable government. The reality is that this last promise by the Conservative Party of Canada produced the most secretive government in the history of Canada AND their leader refuses to be accountable for the cheating they did to get elected the last time. It isn't so much that we need change, we just need more people than a party of one, leading the government. Even when the system is corrupt and being involves corrupts those with good intentions there will always be the possibility that one or two will spill the beans. However, when there is only one man - the Prime Minister - calling the shots and all the rest are told to shut up and just be counted, then corruption reigns.

Absolute rule means absolute corruption.

(.....and I'm sure that if we heard what the REAL Conservatives across this country thought, that even card-carrying members would cringe. That's why Stephen Harper works in a dictatorship.)

That's an excercise in rational discourse, c.r.

IMO, 5-10 parties in a system of proportional representation as they have in Norway, means that every single vote counts and extremist ideologies are diminshed greatly, along with related corruption. Scandinavian countries score highest in media transparency and lowest in political corruption.

Currently, the NDP style social democrats run Norway, but they don't *rule* it, as the other parties, namely the Conservative-Libertarian opposition, keep it in check and prevent it from implementing a too far left agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polit...rties_in_Norway

When you look at their configuration rationally, the ideal parliamentary configuration is a center-right conservative party moderated by a center-left opposition, or vice versa. Scandinavian countries function much more pragmatically and effectively, with less extreme ideological polarity. They have far lower poverty rates, far lower violent crime rates, far lower incarceration rates, and economically are very competitive with extremely well educated and healthy populations.

[bush_cheney2004]

The empirical evidence from Scandinavia and Northern Europe proves that center-left policies reduce poverty, reduce war, reduce persecution, enhance behavioural liberty and solves problems pragmatically/scientifically.

Actually, the empirical evidence is that many of them have joined NATO. Maybe they are just hedging their "center-left" bets.

[Joesixpack5]

Yeah Argus accusing someone of behaving childishly is pretty funny. Even though Joesixpack's delivery might be kind of blunt the message he brings isn't far from the truth at all. Most of what he says is true, The far right wing agenda is leaning heavily towards a police state, where the federal government is taking more control over our lives and leaving us with less and less freedom. No matter how stupid people like Argus may think Joesixpack sounds, he is obviously not voting Conservative and that alone puts him far ahead of Argus in the intelligence department.

I'm human and fallible, but I try to speak boldly. I genuinely admire the older era moderate conservatives (like Joe Clark). They are not social democrats like me, May and Layton, but they are flexible, rational and non-dogmatic. The moderate conservatives are secure and pragmatic, realizing that when you go to the ultra-right extreme, you cause major damage. The Neo-Cons have effectively hijacked the Conservative party, destroying it's 1980 identity, and have rendered it Neo-Fascist WRT social, economic and foreign policy.

[Joesixpack5]

OH WOW LOOK! How am I not surprised that Dr Greenthumb agrees with Sixpackjoe?

I will have to say this though:

Nothing you have posted, however ignorant, can even compare to the slop Joe here has presented. There are a lot of anti-conservative posters on this board. Jdobbin, Marksman and many others I have argued with have always been able to carry on a discussion from the other point of view. Where they would provoke intelligent and reasoned responses from posters, you and Joe here will only continue to get smirks and guffaws and maybe even a little pity because your best attempt at a reasoned and intelligent argument could get dismantled by a pre-teen.

Stop the ad hominem slop, and rationally attack the ideas and policies of libertarian social democracy instead.