Anyone who has anything against Harper - post here.

[Hcheh]

Hi, I have not made up my mind about who I should vote for yet.. I have heard people call Harper a "neo-con" and he is like Bush. If you don't want me to vote for Harper, please state why he is a neo-con, alike Bush, or any reason why I shouldn't vote for him.

Please don't post baseless slander or anything without logical or factual information. Thanks.

[kengs333]

1) bald-faced liar

2) sweater-vests

3) hypocrite

4) war-monger

5) questionable overspending for the military

6) connection to big oil

7) his stance on the environment

8) he's from Alberta

9) former western seperatist

10) was a member of the Reform Party

11) was a member of the Canadian Alliance

12) backstabbing that led to the forming of the CPC

13) Michael Fortier affair

14) muzzling members of his party

15) control freak

16) relationship with the media

17) lack of accountability and transparacy

18) attitude towards the arts

etc. etc. etc.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted unnecessarily re-quoted Opening Post

[stignasty]

He turned me into a newt.

[BC_chick]

Similarities between Bush and Harper? That's easy.

They're both social-conservatives who are anti-choice and anti-same-sex marriage.

On fiscal issues, both claim to be conervatives, yet their spending would put most liberal governments to shame (he's spent most of the surpluses that he inherited from the Chretien/Martin governments - just like Bush did with Clinton's surpluses). At least Mulroney came in to a quagmire and left in worse shape, this guy really has some 'splaning to do.

On crime, he's like Bush where he thinks locking people up for smoking a joint is more important than going after real criminals. They're both huge on morality in that way.

On foreign policy - let's put it this way, if Harper was PM in 03, we'd be in Iraq right now. To paraphrase him, he said something along the lines of "I don't know all the facts surrounding Iraq, but I think we should stand with America" (feel free to google if you like). To continue on with foreign policy - like Bush, he also think Israel should get carte-blanche to do whatever it wants in the Middle-East because there is clear "evil-doers who hate freedom" line vs. the champions of democracy.

He cut universal-child care. Bush doesn't believe in universal anything.

Both want to spend spend spend on the military while cutting back on the arts. You know, the alpha male type who don't think life is all about brawns and nothing about the brains.

Both may seem to be easy going about immigrants, but pretty much every white xenophobic character in both nations seems to support those two.

Both believe in negative smear-ads to gain popularity as opposed to going on their own merits.

Both think global-warming is caused by natural causes and both refuse to do anything against the big corporate polluters (you know, their buddies).

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure I'll think of more as soon as I press "Add Reply"... but that's okay, I hope you get the point.

Edited October 7, 2008 by BC_chick

[craiger]

WEll haper

1.) He did admitt he was adement about invading Iraq and admitts It was a wrong stance. we don't need leaders who make such bad decision Bush jr

2.) income trusts he screwed allot of people out of allot of retirement cash

3.) sucessor of Ralph klien same man who would get drunk and have his limmo driver drive down to the shelter to berate working folks who could not afford a home with a inflated economy.

4.) 6 months into the conservative temporary worker program chinese workers were killed at CNRL investigations showed they were paid 30% the wages, they also secluded them in Gulag work camps in alberta.

5.) People like me have friends and family wanting to get into trades. 12 years ago I told them we need boosting in appreticeship training, nothing was done as temp foreign workers do it cheaper no regard to educate or manage growth

5.) ATB a province owned bank operated by conservatives under conservative government has lost $1 billion of tax payers money in the mortgage crisis. CEO's made millions in the last year while profits droped. Profits of $30 million, $26 million was paid out as bonus to fellow neo cons.

6.) the fact raw bitumen is exported at 1 cent a barrel to be refined in other countrys. harper is giving a 50 billion dollar tax credit for corperations that money could be used to build taxp payer owned refinery's that could provide fuel for Canadians at 40 cents a litre still turning a profit, would also make our company's more competitive cutting energy costs

7.) 30% of the homless problem is people turned away for disability's or medical problems with cutts to social programs and health these poeple are on the streets.

[margrace]

One of the newspaper was saying that Harper cannot claim that his economics have so far kept Canada from more grief. The deregulation in the US, not allowed in Canada, was done before he won his minority, it he had been in power before we would be in the same mess as the US, because he would have followed US policies.

[White Doors]

One of the newspaper was saying that Harper cannot claim that his economics have so far kept Canada from more grief. The deregulation in the US, not allowed in Canada, was done before he won his minority, it he had been in power before we would be in the same mess as the US, because he would have followed US policies.

Ahhh... So it's his fault if we go into recession but he can't take credit if we don't.

Cool how that works!

[scribblet]

LOL - are the double standards just grand.

If Harper were 'neo-con' what ever that perjurative is supposed to mean, he would be allowing debate on abortion and SSM. He has declared again that there will be no debate. Actually, the genuine anti abortion social conservates are frothing at the mouther over his loack of such tendencies.

Income trusts decision was made to stop large corporations getting out of paying taxes, if he had allowed to evade taxes, then they would be screaming about that.

The medical problems and homeless are provincial areas, not federal, the original massive transfer cutting was done by the Liberals.

Of course, we both know Bush and Harper have SUV's in the security, guess that makes him a Bush clone LOL

[Argus]

etc. etc. etc.

The one and only reason is - he's conservative. All of the above can easily be overlooked by the likes of you, and are, constantly, when it's a liberal or NDP or BQ or Green or anyone. Dion, for example, was a separatist, but that's no reason for you to criticise him, while Duceppe was a Communist. But so what, right? May is extremely religious and anti-abortion, but none of you on the Left ever criticises that, while constantly speaking darkly of Harper as some kind of religious fanatic. And if anyone said he wouldn't vote for a Quebecer you'd call them a bigot, but you don't have any problem smirkingly putting "he's from Alberta" on your little list.. Your "reasons" are so much ignorant, pustulant drivil.

[Argus]

Similarities between Bush and Harper? That's easy.

They're both social-conservatives who are anti-choice and anti-same-sex marriage.

Obama is anti same-sex marriage. May is anti-abortion. I bet you like both of them.

On fiscal issues, both claim to be conervatives, yet their spending would put most liberal governments to shame (he's spent most of the surpluses that he inherited from the Chretien/Martin governments - just like Bush did with Clinton's surpluses).

He "spent" the surpluses? What he did was cut taxes. I don't know how it became a "good idea" in the minds of the idiot left that the government should not only tax the hell out of us - but tax us extra, way extra, just in case they might find a use for it someday' but it's almost beyond belief how you can suggest this is sound fiscal policy.

"Well Fred, the government will spend $200 billion this year. But we think they government should collect $250 billion in taxes just in case they need the extra money, no, make that $300 billion, no, no $400 billion. Just in case. Canadians have no need of their own money anyway. Better for the government to look after it."

On foreign policy - let's put it this way, if Harper was PM in 03, we'd be in Iraq right now. To paraphrase him, he said something along the lines of "I don't know all the facts surrounding Iraq, but I think we should stand with America" (feel free to google if you like). To continue on with foreign policy - like Bush, he also think Israel should get carte-blanche to do whatever it wants in the Middle-East because there is clear "evil-doers who hate freedom" line vs. the champions of democracy.

In reality, Chretien stayed out of Iraq after polling like crazy. He delayed and delayed, while his political operators took the pulse of every group likely to vote Liberal, and in the end he decided to stay out for only one reason - it was better politics. You Lefties cite Australia often. Australia went to Iraq, and was gone again a couple of years later. They suffered almost no casualties. So if we'd done that we'd probably be out by now as well. Instead we're still on the Liberal inspired mission to Afghanistan.

He cut universal-child care. Bush doesn't believe in universal anything.

There has never been universal child care. The Liberals have promised it every election for the last twenty years, but never done anything to follow through. Martin ran around making deals with the provinces, offering them free money if they'd say it was for children, but that was the extent of their "program". Harper replaced that money to the provinces with money to families.

Both want to spend spend spend on the military while cutting back on the arts. You know, the alpha male type who don't think life is all about brawns and nothing about the brains.

Harper has spent more on the arts than the Liberals, as you know, so I'm gathering honesty is not something you put much importance on. He's spending on the military now largely because the Liberals left them penniless for so long they were on the verge of rust-out.

Both may seem to be easy going about immigrants, but pretty much every white xenophobic character in both nations seems to support those two.

Well, a lot of the Jew haters seem to vote Liberal, and seem to have a comfortable home there.

Both believe in negative smear-ads to gain popularity as opposed to going on their own merits.

The main themes of the Liberal and NDP campaigns have been negative smear campaign against Harper. I guess that makes them JUST LIKE GEORGE BUSH!

Both think global-warming is caused by natural causes and both refuse to do anything against the big corporate polluters (you know, their buddies).

And yet, both will and have done better on that score than the previous Liberal government - which didn't, apprently, bother you much.

[Argus]

One of the newspaper was saying that Harper cannot claim that his economics have so far kept Canada from more grief. The deregulation in the US, not allowed in Canada, was done before he won his minority, it he had been in power before we would be in the same mess as the US, because he would have followed US policies.

Here's a clue for you; Regulations are created and changed within the bureacracy. Most regulations are not ever even seen by Parliament, nor are the enforcement decisions up to parliament. The bureacracy does that on its own under direction by the government. If Harper had wanted to deregulate he'd have done it by now.

[Argus]

WEll haper

A lot of bluster, drivel and whining which only makes on thing clear: You have no clue whatever about what is a federal area of responsibility, and what is a provincial area of responsibility. Most of what you're whining about are provincial responsibilities.

[Pliny]

LOL - are the double standards just grand.

If Harper were 'neo-con' what ever that perjurative is supposed to mean,

It is a new term and is often misunderstood.

A conservative would by definition be for the preservation of the status quo. The status quo is currently quite socialist which falls outside the traditional definition of "conservative" so the term neo-conservative was invented.

It has it's originations in left wing liberalism. As they wish to "conserve" the socialist gains they have won over the last several decades and maintain the liberal socialist trend they have become the neo-conservatives. Soon the political landscape will shift and we will see the left become the new right. They will not notice, except perhaps in retrospect.

As you see on this thread, most of the complaints about Harper is that he does not hold Liberal views to be sacrosanct. The neocons will attempt to force big government on the populace while the true "paleo-conservative", will attempt to limit government. Deregulation, privatization and limiting government intervention is anathema to the neo-conservative. If the Liberal believes he is still Liberal because he holds socialist values he will soon discover he is on the extreme right of the political spectrum. He refuses to move to the centre which is the direction of paleo-conservatism.

Bush is a true conservative, as is Harper. Bush does have neo-cons in his administration but I don't know of any in Harper's cabinet since Canada is pretty far to the left anyway. I think he is attempting to be a centrist.

Of course Harper is a politician and politicians of all stripes will do untrustworthy things. What sense does it make to have power and not use it? The best bet is to vote Libertarian but failing that, vote Conservative which at least promises a move toward less government.

[Pliny]

You make some good points, Argus.

Painting Harper negatively is the job of Liberals but they are starting to sound quite militaristic and demanding, don't you think?

As to economics, I don't think current governments can be blamed for a bad economy except in the fact they hold the current monopolistic paradigm to be inviolable but that has been the belief of all sitting governments in Canada and the US for nearly a century. It hasn't really been a calm and peaceful one, has it? But they will not release their stranglehold upon the economy. As a business man they expect me to be a tax collector for them but make the tax laws incomprehensible to even themselves, as they deny their advices to be of any value.

[August1991]

8) he's from Alberta

WTF?

[Argus]

WTF?

Alberta is full of capitalists and oil companies that pollute the environment. They're evil!

Oh please save us, Jack Layton! Save us from Alberta by shutting down their evil polluting oil developments!

Uhhhm, but we still want their transfer payments to pay for our social programs, k?

Edited October 7, 2008 by Argus

[noahbody]

To paraphrase him, he said something along the lines of "I don't know all the facts surrounding Iraq, but I think we should stand with America" (feel free to google if you like).

He said, "I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans."

[normanchateau]

May is extremely religious and anti-abortion, but none of you on the Left ever criticises that, while constantly speaking darkly of Harper as some kind of religious fanatic.

Neither the Left nor the Right has a monopoly on selectively identifying religious nuts. May and Harper are religious nuts and I've stated that previously:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....aded&start=

Canada does not need a religious nut as leader. One needs only to look at the US and Iran to see the damage such leaders can do to their country.

[fellowtraveller]

8) he's from Alberta

No, I'm from Alberta.

Harper is from Toronto.

The thing I dislike about him, and it is substantiated in many photos, is that he is a Leafs fan.

This reveals a serious lack of character and judgement.

Edited October 7, 2008 by fellowtraveller

[M.Dancer]

No, I'm from Alberta.

Harper is from Toronto.

The thing I dislike about him, and it is substantiated in many photos, is that he is a Leafs fan.

This reveals a serious lack of character and judgement.

Or ...

He's steadfastly loyal and an incredible optimist.

[BC_chick]

QUOTE(BC_chick @ Oct 6 2008, 11:17 PM)

To paraphrase him, he said something along the lines of "I don't know all the facts surrounding Iraq, but I think we should stand with America" (feel free to google if you like).

He said, "I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans."

Well thanks for the setting the record straight!

[BC_chick]

Obama is anti same-sex marriage. May is anti-abortion. I bet you like both of them.

He "spent" the surpluses? What he did was cut taxes. I don't know how it became a "good idea" in the minds of the idiot left that the government should not only tax the hell out of us - but tax us extra, way extra, just in case they might find a use for it someday' but it's almost beyond belief how you can suggest this is sound fiscal policy.

"Well Fred, the government will spend $200 billion this year. But we think they government should collect $250 billion in taxes just in case they need the extra money, no, make that $300 billion, no, no $400 billion. Just in case. Canadians have no need of their own money anyway. Better for the government to look after it."

In reality, Chretien stayed out of Iraq after polling like crazy. He delayed and delayed, while his political operators took the pulse of every group likely to vote Liberal, and in the end he decided to stay out for only one reason - it was better politics. You Lefties cite Australia often. Australia went to Iraq, and was gone again a couple of years later. They suffered almost no casualties. So if we'd done that we'd probably be out by now as well. Instead we're still on the Liberal inspired mission to Afghanistan.

There has never been universal child care. The Liberals have promised it every election for the last twenty years, but never done anything to follow through. Martin ran around making deals with the provinces, offering them free money if they'd say it was for children, but that was the extent of their "program". Harper replaced that money to the provinces with money to families.

Harper has spent more on the arts than the Liberals, as you know, so I'm gathering honesty is not something you put much importance on. He's spending on the military now largely because the Liberals left them penniless for so long they were on the verge of rust-out.

Well, a lot of the Jew haters seem to vote Liberal, and seem to have a comfortable home there.

The main themes of the Liberal and NDP campaigns have been negative smear campaign against Harper. I guess that makes them JUST LIKE GEORGE BUSH!

And yet, both will and have done better on that score than the previous Liberal government - which didn't, apprently, bother you much.

Most of what you say here is about ideology and why Harper is right in his views. But my post wasn't about how you and I see see the world differently, it's about the similarities between GW Bush and Harper.

The only legitimate time you actually attemtp to dispute the GW/Harper similarity is where you discuss the smear-campaign tactics where you say all parties are guilty. Touche.

However, Harper is still the only member of a Canadian political system to launch negative attack ads when it's not election time. This is beyond the norm of "politics," IMHO.

Edited October 7, 2008 by BC_chick

[AngusThermopyle]

it's about the similarities between GW Bush and Harper.

No its not, well, maybe in your mind but that's it. Read the thread title again and try not to distort the actual meaning.

[kengs333]

Ahhh... So it's his fault if we go into recession but he can't take credit if we don't.

Cool how that works!

That's pretty much how it would go regardless of who was PM. That's how politics works. He wanted this election knowing that he would have to take the blame for the economy once the doo-doo hits the fan--which it is now--and it would be easy to ride it out in a majority thanks to his (laughable) fixed-election-date sham (which he thought he had in the bag in early September) or even a minorty, which will last 2 to 2.5 years. Too bad for him, the doo-doo hit the fan sooner rather than later, and now he's dropping in the polls. Nobody believes him when he talks about the economy because they know that giving tax cuts to corporations doesn't change the fact that we are highly dependent upon the American economy thanks to Mulroney and we're in for a very rough ride...

[BC_chick]

No its not, well, maybe in your mind but that's it. Read the thread title again and try not to distort the actual meaning.

Here is the part from the original post to which I was responding:

I have heard people call Harper a "neo-con" and he is like Bush. If you don't want me to vote for Harper, please state why he is a neo-con, alike Bush[...]

That's why I started MY post with

Harper and Bush alike? That's easy.

I then proceeded to state all the similarities between the two. Argus, OTOH, wanted to start debating ideology.

Do try and keep up, eh?