Harper's plagiarized 2003 Iraq speech

[jdobbin]

Is it such a concern to Canadians that they would not re-elect Harper? I think not.

If Harper displayed poor judgment, so did Ignatieff, a Liberal star who may one day be Prime Minister.

To reelect Harper, probably not. To give him a majority so he can send troops possibly to Iran, maybe not.

It appears that Ignatieff, regardless of his subsequent mea culpa, was in lock-step with Bush on the Iraq war back in 2003. Should Ignatieff one day become the Liberal leader or Prime Minister, there is a ton of material available to resurrect his prior views on the Iraq war. In addition, those words were his own, not words plagiarized by a speechwriter.

Indeed. Ignatieff says he was in lockstep back then. He also said Chretien was right. Harper never has. Canada would have been in Iraq with Harper as PM.

Edited October 1, 2008 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

In the huge overspending the Tories have been doing for the last number of years and especially in the last months when evidence was shown that the economy was headed for troubled waters.

Jdobbin I asked you several times and you ignored me every time but I'd like to know how the Tories are worse managers of money when they've lowered taxes, maintained balanced budgets and when the Liberals have promised over $80 Billion in extra spending with no indication of where the money is coming from. Take a shot at it please.

[jdobbin]

No, there is ZERO evidence of this. There is evidence that the Tories reduced over taxation on the country and that they have consistently delivered balanced budgets while doing so. The present Liberals have NO spending record other than the fact that they are proposing to increase spending by something like 80 billion.

You and a lot of the other Tory bashers like to bring this up all the time. You say the Tories are fiscally irresponsible BUT you fail at EVERY chance to explain how the alternatives (who are promising spending increases WAY above and beyond the Tories) would be any more responsible.

The fact that Chretien/Martin Liberals maintained the highest taxes pretty much ever, bogarted EI and crippled provincial governments with unfair reductions in transfer payments doesn't really count as a good public record btw.

I'm afraid you are wrong at every turn here.

[jdobbin]

Out of curiosity, when 9/11 happened what did those on the left wish for the west to do?

That we not invade the wrong country as Bush did with Iraq and that Harper would have sent us to as well.

Afghanistan is hardly a disasterous adventure, and we've lost more lives in both Korea and World War 2, however I'd still say they were both worth it.

Afghanistan is hardly a success this many years into the war too.

[Moonbox]

To reelect Harper, probably not. To give him a majority so he can send troops possibly to Iran, maybe not.

How do you even say this?? Harper knows Iraq is unpopular with about 95% of Canadians. He's not stupid, despite what you'd like to think, and there's no way in a million years he'd go into Iran. To suggest such is just silly scare mongering.

[Moonbox]

I'm afraid you are wrong at every turn here.

Well THERE'S a compelling argument. Elaborate, please. Let's discuss this.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin I asked you several times and you ignored me every time but I'd like to know how the Tories are worse managers of money when they've lowered taxes, maintained balanced budgets and when the Liberals have promised over $80 Billion in extra spending with no indication of where the money is coming from. Take a shot at it please.

I have shown you link after link about how the Tories are overspending their election promises and you ignore them every time.

[jdobbin]

Well THERE'S a compelling argument. Elaborate, please. Let's discuss this.

You ignore them anyway.

[eyeball]

Do you remember how Harper quit from the progressive conservative party in disgust back in the 80's at Mulroney's policies?

Yup, I forgot why though. Perhaps you could refresh my memory, not to mention your own.

[Argus]

In the huge overspending the Tories have been doing for the last number of years and especially in the last months when evidence was shown that the economy was headed for troubled waters.

Say dobby, has your indecisive, sputtering leader passed the one hundred billion mark in promises yet?

[Argus]

The evidence is quite clear that the Liberals have a better spending record than the present Tories.

Drivel.

During most of their last time in office - I presume you don't want to get into Trudeau's quadrupling of the national budget his first two terms - Chretien faced no real opposition, and simply ignored all the country's problems. He let health care and everything else deteriorate even though the federal coffers were awash in cash. And he did it not to be a prudent fiscalist but because he didn't give a damn about anything or anyone but himself and his political fortunes. As long as there was no threat on the horizon to his political tenure he wouldn't get off his ass and do anything. But the moment the combined conservatives started getting to the point where they were seen as a legitimate threat the money started pouring and the promises started flooding out. I remember the press saying, during Chretien's last days in office, that Martin was being hamstrung by all the commitments Chretien had made, many of them long-term commitments. That Martin wouldn't have any money left to do a thing for years. But then Martin got in and the Tory threat became even greater, and that great conservative spender Paul Martin started spending like a drunken sailor, promising everything to anyone who might vote for him.

Now I'll grant you that the Tories have spent more than I would have liked. But that's the nature of election times and minority governments are always in election mode. Joe Clark's government demonstrated very well to the Tories that if you lose popularity the Liberals will pounce the instant they think they have a chance of winning. That's what they did to him, decrying his gas tax, which was his way of trying to address the deficit, even while planning to implement it themselves.

And that's one of the reasons why I'd like to see the Tories get in with a majority. I think they'd be much more fiscally prudent if they had a little security for a change.

[Argus]

Usually they wins because the Tories mismanage things such. I suspect that is where the economy is headed now.

Hmm, I remember Trudeau winning one election by portraying Stanfield's plan for wage and price controls as disastrous. That was the centrepiece of the campaign Of course, once he got in Trudeau put in wage and price controls himself.

I remember another campaign which started when the Liberals kicked out Joe Clark's government over a seven cent gas tax. Again, that was the centrepiece of that election, and after they got in the Liberals put in a gas tax that wound up being raised to something like fifteen cents.

Then there was Chretien promising to safeguard health care, promising that it was a sacred trust. In fact, he promised that in consecutive elections - while cutting funds to health care. Of course, let's not forget the GST, which he promised to remove. Or his first campaign, the main point of which was a plan to cut the "Cadillac" helicopter contract and use the money on er, golf courses, canoe museums, blonde joke books, and other "infrastructure" items.

No, the Liberals get in - quite simply - by lying. Liberal history is clear. Find out what you can get votes with, and then, whether you plan to do it or not, that's what you spout again and again. Whether it's demonizing your opponents dishonestly, or talking up plans you don't plan to follow through on, or scaring people by saying the opposition's plans will bankrupt the nation. Whatever it takes, whatever the cost, that's what Liberals will do to get elected.

Of course, after they're in power they can sit back and relax. It's not like they actually care about any of that stuff they talk about during election time. That's just for the suckers.

[Moonbox]

I have shown you link after link about how the Tories are overspending their election promises and you ignore them every time.

No I don't ignore them. I read them, and then I explain to you that increased spending can help soften an economic downturn. I also explain that the Conservatives are a minority government and that they need to be spending to maintain support and ensure the polls don't dive on them.

You've now blatently refused to EXPLAIN any of your balogna statements and I'm sure we'll continue to see you wailing on and on about how Conservative spending has been out of hand DESPITE a balanced budget with lower taxes during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

You'll no doubt try to say they're on the way to a deficit, but like I've said it's sound economic policy to run a slight deficit in the first place to encourage spending in a sinking economy.

Finally, and we'll leave you with this tidbit:

WHY ARE THE LIBERALS CRITICIZING HARPER'S SPENDING POLICIES WHEN THEY ARE PROMISING OVER 80 BILLION IN INCREASED SPENDING!?????

Again Jdobbin, I invite you to EXPLAIN your statements and rationalize how you came to them. I fully expect you to dodge as usual but a guy can hope.

[Canadian Blue]

So we can all agree that the Liberals have no ideas or principles, and they must steal them from either the NDP or Conservatives whenever the wind changes.

[jdobbin]

No I don't ignore them. I read them, and then I explain to you that increased spending can help soften an economic downturn. I also explain that the Conservatives are a minority government and that they need to be spending to maintain support and ensure the polls don't dive on them.

Again Jdobbin, I invite you to EXPLAIN your statements and rationalize how you came to them. I fully expect you to dodge as usual but a guy can hope.

It is obvious you haven't read the links or you would still not defend the fact the Tories have broken their promise not to overspend from their 2006 election year platform.

[jdobbin]

So we can all agree that the Liberals have no ideas or principles, and they must steal them from either the NDP or Conservatives whenever the wind changes.

And the Tories have a secret agenda on abortion, the death penalty and extension in Afghanistan?

[jdobbin]

Drivel.

Now I'll grant you that the Tories have spent more than I would have liked. But that's the nature of election times and minority governments are always in election mode. Joe Clark's government demonstrated very well to the Tories that if you lose popularity the Liberals will pounce the instant they think they have a chance of winning. That's what they did to him, decrying his gas tax, which was his way of trying to address the deficit, even while planning to implement it themselves.

And that's one of the reasons why I'd like to see the Tories get in with a majority. I think they'd be much more fiscally prudent if they had a little security for a change.

No indication that a majority is going to change Harper's highspending ways. Are you saying it is part of his secret agenda?

[jdobbin]

Say dobby, has your indecisive, sputtering leader passed the one hundred billion mark in promises yet?

I think you know the rules about not using proper names. Why do you continue to think you are exempt from the rules the moderator has in place?

Think I've already said that the Liberals are going down to crashing defeat. I disagree with a lot of the spending announcements from all the parties.

Edited October 1, 2008 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

And the Tories have a secret agenda on abortion, the death penalty and extension in Afghanistan?

Hogwash and same old, same old. Don't you realize how tiring it is to hear the same fear mongering over and over and over again. I thought you were above that.

[Peter F]

It does take time to rebuild a military it doesn't just happen over night. The have to creat more training space, take some of the higher ranks out of regular service to act as teachers and trainers. When new equipment is purchased it takes time for the order to be filled by manufacturers. Then before the equipment can go into general service the manufacturer has to send a specalist to train the military how the new peice of equipment. After the Specalist is done then those who received the training have to put together a training program and train the rest of the Canadian military. We have seen the begining of this process but it is far from complete.

As for the current deployment Canada made a commitment to NATO, we were asked to participate, the then liberal government decided to send troops there. We can't just cut and run from ther responsiblity. BY 2011 we will have been in the combat role long enough and it will be time for us to be moved out of thaty combatr role, and another nation in NATO to pick it up. You do have to remember it take many years to rebuild a nation properly, it took almost 20 years in Japan, with no terrorist opposition. It may take longer to do for Afgansistan, but as long as their government wants us their we must stay, as it was us as a part of NATO who took on this reponsiblity, and all countries invovled must see it through.

and as a NATO country we could have limited ourselves to something we could have effectively supported...much like many other NATO countries have done. But we did and the Liberals are to blame for that.

There is no requirement that Canada continue in a role that it has not the wherewithall to complete. We have and that is the responsiblity of the Cons and Libs.

I will admit that the Fat Lady has yet to sing, and things may work out despite the fact the CAF is underequiped and undermanned for the role in wich they have been assigned.

The conservative party are not the innocent babes they like to make themselves out to be. They were the official opposition at the time Martin committed the CAF to its role. They gladly and happily supported that decision . They were not shocked to discover what that mission was when they took over the government. All the while knowing full well that the CAF was not properly equipped for the job.

Both the libs and cons are as guilty as sin.

Harper, knowing full well how underequiped the CAF was, plagerized a speach encouraging the government of the day in 2003 to commit those same underequiped AF to combat operations in Iraq....I know, that wasnt his fault, that was the fault of the Liberal Party.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Peter F

[jdobbin]

Hogwash and same old, same old. Don't you realize how tiring it is to hear the same fear mongering over and over and over again. I thought you were above that.

Just showing that the claim that all Liberals are bad is the same old fear mongering we see from the Tory warroom.

[Canadian Blue]

Jdobbin, how does it feel to have no good reason to vote for the Liberals outside of paranoia.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin, how does it feel to have no good reason to vote for the Liberals outside of paranoia.

Think I have been quite clear why I think Harper is not good for the country. I disagree with his GST cut over income tax cuts. I disagree with his not advocating for clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty, I disagree with his stance on same sex marriage, I disagree with his daycare policy that doesn't create daycares, I disagree with him cancelling Kelowna. Most of all...I disagree with Harper's overspending that even the CTF says is over the top.

None of that is paranoia. It is Conservative policy.

[Moonbox]

I think you know the rules about not using proper names. Why do you continue to think you are exempt from the rules the moderator has in place?

Seriously?! He called you dobby! You'll survive that verbal atom bomb I promise!

It is obvious you haven't read the links or you would still not defend the fact the Tories have broken their promise not to overspend from their 2006 election year platform.

And this is your response to my challenge for you to EXPLAIN what you think are Harper's bad economic policies!!? Providing internet links does not magically mean that you're right! All your links were just references to Harper spending announcements. Every government has spending announcements! Every opposition party has proposed even HEAVIER spending increases than the Harper government! Get your head out of the sand!!

You said Harper went overbudget. I acknowledged that. With that said, it was a budget HE set in the first place and HE STILL has a balanced budget with LOWER taxes.

PLEASE. I beg of you! Explain what his bad economic policies are. Specifically, Jdobbin, what economic policies has Harper implemented that have set Canada so astray and how is the Liberal opposition's proposed spending increases of $80 billion going to help bring the supposed 'overspending' Conservative budget in line!??

Answer the question!

If you can't do that, then at least acknowledge that you don't have anything even resembling a clue what you're talking about.

So far you've shown us that you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

Think I have been quite clear why I think Harper is not good for the country. I disagree with his GST cut over income tax cuts. I disagree with his not advocating for clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty, I disagree with his stance on same sex marriage, I disagree with his daycare policy that doesn't create daycares, I disagree with him cancelling Kelowna. Most of all...I disagree with Harper's overspending that even the CTF says is over the top.

None of that is paranoia. It is Conservative policy.

You can disagree with all of these things. Harper is not a pandering socialist nor is he socially liberal. We know that. His stance on same sex marriage is irrelevant as it will never affect Canadians. His daycare policy helped families. It may not have been enough for you, but he's never been about massively expensive social programs. You can disagree on him not wasting Canadian time and money intervening on the death penalty for a confessed multi-murderer, but I have more important things to care about.

As for the GST vs Income Tax cuts, do you know how that affects you differently, or is that again just you towing the party line?