Anyone who has anything against Harper - post here.

[Alta4ever]

The fact that I mistook some of the aspects of what I was told... rather forgot or didn't care about those details at the time... does NOT disprove my source. It's not an accusation... and I'm guessing your buddies' rankings aren't all that high. Nice try though dude.

It does disprove your 2nd or third hand account, in fact you may have made most of that post up. Wiki does refute your whole post.

I would love for you to please tell me what special knoweledge a Capt. has about this? They aren't all that high in rank. Not far from the 2nd Lt. and Chief Warrent Officer I talk to quite regularly. It comes not even close to those in the know like the Ret. Brig. General I had the great honour of speaking with.

[Alta4ever]

Are you saying the Canada’s national police college was about to sacrifice the lives of Canadians in a war founded on lies?

What I am telling you is that Harper and CPC govern from policies that originate from the ordinary citizens of this country.

As for a war founded on lies, that is speculative. Should we have supported the Americans, that depends on what is ment by support, if you mean direct troop invovlement, then no, there is no way we could have ever been militarly invovled we just don't have the military assets to do it. Should we have offered moral support, you tell me? We did pay a bit of a political price, tyhrough the softwood lumber dispute, closed boarder to beef, and so on. Look while you like it or not we depend on the US for our economic security, and to an extent the security of our boarders. So really its hard to say what we have gained and lost, time will tell.

[Kitch]

It does disprove your 2nd or third hand account, in fact you may have made most of that post up. Wiki does refute your whole post.

I would love for you to please tell me what special knoweledge a Capt. has about this? They aren't all that high in rank. Not far from the 2nd Lt. and Chief Warrent Officer I talk to quite regularly. It comes not even close to those in the know like the Ret. Brig. General I had the great honour of speaking with.

Bud, are you pissed because I won't sympathize with you because you got a bad grade on a paper? Boo hoo.

I'm not sure of my buddy's rank... all I know is that he's not a young man and told me many stories of his 'adventures'.

How does wikipedia refute anything? That's a 2nd or 3rd hand account on your part. You do know what a wiki is right? Either way, the absence of information does not refute any claims, especially not in this case. How COULD one refute my 1st claim? It's irrefutable I believe. It's not mutually exclusive... nor is ANY motivating factor. You COULD refute the fact that NATO or the UN pays countries for having troops in certain conflicts, but you haven't done that.

The reason that you haven't done that, I PRESUME (see, I don't pretend to know things that I can't REALLY know), is that you're too busy being mad at me because you can't say anything intelligent in the other thread and I called you on it... and your grammar.

Made it up... don't let your feelings get in the way of your judgement. It doesn't lead to sound logic.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....So really its hard to say what we have gained and lost, time will tell.

Not much....as Canada has perfected the art of fence sitting in such matters...it has to for the reasons you cite (compared to France or Germany).

If a healthy clarification of the CanAm relationship is a gain or a loss matters not. Americans cemented the notion that the UK is their closest ally, while Canada and Mexico are where borders become more important.

Edited October 8, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Alta4ever]

Bud, are you pissed because I won't sympathize with you because you got a bad grade on a paper? Boo hoo.

I'm not sure of my buddy's rank... all I know is that he's not a young man and told me many stories of his 'adventures'.

How does wikipedia refute anything? That's a 2nd or 3rd hand account on your part. You do know what a wiki is right? Either way, the absence of information does not refute any claims, especially not in this case. How COULD one refute my 1st claim? It's irrefutable I believe. It's not mutually exclusive... nor is ANY motivating factor. You COULD refute the fact that NATO or the UN pays countries for having troops in certain conflicts, but you haven't done that.

The reason that you haven't done that, I PRESUME (see, I don't pretend to know things that I can't REALLY know), is that you're too busy being mad at me because you can't say anything intelligent in the other thread and I called you on it... and your grammar.

Made it up... don't let your feelings get in the way of your judgement. It doesn't lead to sound logic.

I could really care less about what you think of my grammer, in fact I was quite amused with your response. I don't get mad, I do get angry. A past bad grade doesn't really bother me either it was more than 10 years ago. Just showing biased in the schools and university towards leftist policies, which isn't right. A teacher is paid to give a child the tools they need to enter the work force and for their own opinions not spit out the teachers opinions as thier own.

The UN does not pay for peacekeepers in this conflict, I thought it was quite apparent that this is a NATO led and run mission. WIKI did a fine job of explaining the history of the of the Afgan war.

What you were tring to refer to was the bumbling and indecesion of the Martin government. Due to their inablity to decide where in Afganistan to send the troops we were left with Kandahar.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

Canada and Mexico are where borders become more important.

If it makes you feel better, many Canadians feel the same in regards to the United States of America.

[bush_cheney2004]

If it makes you feel better, many Canadians feel the same in regards to the United States of America.

I know.....it's not a recent notion.

[Alta4ever]

delete

Edited October 8, 2008 by Alta4ever

[noahbody]

I think the most dangerous thing about Harper is how he muzzles the MP's and the media.

For starters, Harper doesn't muzzle the media. If they did, you wouldn't have heard how he muzzles MPs. Is muzzling MPs dangerous? I don't think so.

Parties are no longer a product of the people, but a product sold to people. MPs are merely an extension of the brand. Strong brands have one voice. This is why parties want their MPs to stay on message. Harper does seem overprotective and he isn't media-friendly, but after members of the media tried to brand the Conservatives with Randy White comments in the 2004 election, both are understandable.

I don't believe that Harper truly believes in democracy.

He tells you what he's going to do so if you don't like it, you don't have to vote for him. That's democratic.

[White Doors]

The fact that I mistook some of the aspects of what I was told... rather forgot or didn't care about those details at the time... does NOT disprove my source. It's not an accusation... and I'm guessing your buddies' rankings aren't all that high. Nice try though dude.

So... the fact that you were proven wrong doesn't make what you said, not right?

wha?

Edited October 8, 2008 by White Doors

[Argus]

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.

While I don't generally argue with the sentiment, not being terribly comfortable with religious nuts myself, I would be hard-pressed to show that Harper has been a worse leader than those who came before him, or those the opposition offers up to replace him.

As to the US, I don't think GWG is a religious nut. I think he makes mouth noises when necessary for the press and the religious right, but his history prior to politics - when he needed their support - shows someone not particularly religious about anything.

[Argus]

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.

The only legitimate time? Your comparisons are pretty much all slanted and distortions. Harper has ruled from the centre, and is a lot smarter than Bush anyway. Giving money to a military on the verge of rustout is not the same as pouring money into a military already in excellent condition. Cutting taxes when you have a big surplus is not the same as cutting taxes when you're already in deficit. Harper is religious. Bush pretends to be religious.

[Argus]

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

That's why I started MY post with

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

I wasn't discussing ideology. I was trying to point out how distorted your comparisons were. None of them actually match up as anything more than coincidence or mutual choice. Harper was willing to go to Iraq? Well, geel, so was Tony Blair. Harper is just like Tony Blair! Tony Blair is just like Michael Ingatieiff! Come on.

[Argus]

One thing that bugs me about Harper is when he says that the Cons have created more jobs and has a surplus. The fact are HE didn't create those jobs, Alberta did and the surplus was left over by the Libs by a better finance minister than we have now! The only jobs HE may have created are the PARTIME workers or the retrained workers who are working at Timmy's or Walmart after losing their job in the manufacturing sector. I wonder after Ottawa, is he going back to Imperial Oil and work for them or maybe a consultant job somewhere for 6-figure pay cheque.

Government's always take the credit when jobs are created, and they are also blaimed when there are job losses. Neither is usually fair. The Liberals took the credit when the last recession ended for all job creation. I tried in vain to get Liberals to tell me what policies or programs ended the recession but they couldn't think of any.

As for the last finance minister being better - sorry, but I don't see it. Collecting more money than you need - way more than you need every year, and offering up dishonest predictios to justify it don't make you a great finance minister. Furthermore, being finance minister at a time of economic growth and wealth is pretty damned easy. Try being finance minister, like Eric Neilson, for example, in the midst of a recession with huge inflation and unemployment pressures and a giant budget deficit. Coping with that takes one hell of a lot more intelligence and ability than trying to figure out how to spend enormous riches you didn't work for.

[Argus]

I think the most dangerous thing about Harper is how he muzzles the MP's and the media.

Trudeau said MPs were nobodies fifty feet from parliament hill. He was their absolute leader, and God help any Liberal MP who spoke out of turn. Chretien was notorious for despising the media. During his thirteen years in office he almost never held press conferences, and the only time he spoke to the media - outside elections - was when he wanted to use them for something. His caucus was made up of trained seals who clapped on cue and never spoke without consulting the PMO. Anyone who tried to do otherwise found themselves very quickly on his shit list, and brother, Chretien was a vengeful man who never forgave. Martin was a notorious control freak who trusted no one. He held all the levers of power in his hands.

The dangerous thing about Harper, to you, is he's conservative. Why not just admit it? You don't need a reason. You don't have a reason. Your beliefs are based on emotion, on fear, not on knowledge.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

Quit with the petty stuff harper would have taken us into war with Iraq! Harper is not a leader with good decision skills Harper is a sheep he would have preached weapons of mass destruction lies to the people. Harper does not think for the people he represents he has no brain to make choices, his choices are dictated by elites that will make him huge moneys in the private sector when he is done

I'm curious. How do you keep typing after turning your brain into the "off" position?

[Argus]

Bud, are you pissed because I won't sympathize with you because you got a bad grade on a paper? Boo hoo.

I'm not sure of my buddy's rank... all I know is that he's not a young man and told me many stories of his 'adventures'.

You're not sure of his rank? I find that extremely odd. People in the military who talk about being in the military are generally very clear about that. And the higher up they are the more clear about it they are.

Whoever he was - assuming he exists - he was a wack job if he thought we were there because the UN was paying us. Or maybe you haven't been listening to the shrill protests coming from the Liberals and NDP about the high cost of the mission?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Harper lacks style and he lacks class. Of late my biggest bitch about him is the recent revelation about his speech in 2003. Now I know he is a fraud, I had my doubts about him before but that nailed it down pretty dam well.

[Argus]

Harper lacks style and he lacks class. Of late my biggest bitch about him is the recent revelation about his speech in 2003. Now I know he is a fraud, I had my doubts about him before but that nailed it down pretty dam well.

Lacks class? Did you miss the debate? He was the only person there who showed any class or dignity. As for a speech written by a lackey who, it turned out, consulted the internet rather than his imagination, you'd have to be an immense hypocrite to blame that on Harper.

The real reason you dislike Harper is he's conservative. Come on. We all know it. Just admit it, for God's sakes! Don't worry, we won't ask you to justify it. We know you can't anyway.

[Kitch]

So... the fact that you were proven wrong doesn't make what you said, not right?

wha?

Ridiculous. Not refuted = still possible

[Kitch]

You're not sure of his rank? I find that extremely odd. People in the military who talk about being in the military are generally very clear about that. And the higher up they are the more clear about it they are.

Whoever he was - assuming he exists - he was a wack job if he thought we were there because the UN was paying us. Or maybe you haven't been listening to the shrill protests coming from the Liberals and NDP about the high cost of the mission?

He could have worn a sign on his head that stated his rank and I wouldn't have remembered because I could care less. He is most certainly not a whack job... he actually holds a lot of views that you conservatives would jerk off to. I had MANY a discussion with him about the differences between left and right. He offered this information... that I apologize that I didn't take clear notes on last winter... as something for me to think about as it's something that doesn't sit entirely well with him. He knows what he did there was good for the people of Afghanistan (whether I agree with that or not), but this was something that he disliked.

You know, I wasn't throwing this out there to be refuted by people who are so sensitive about Harper. In fact, I even said I don't know which government sent our troops there. It doesn't really matter to me. The fact is that they're there and I don't know if I like that or not. I was throwing it out there as something the guy who started the thread could consider... fully knowing that I couldn't provide him with any citation. Take it for what it's worth! Mr. Alta actually DID say something that might be helpful... he said that it was Paul Martin who sent the troops there... bla bla bla. Well, that wouldn't refute my story but it shows that my reasons for suggesting to not vote for Harper aren't valid! But WOW. Even the guy who said that can't pick that out as an important point to make initially.

I don't give a damn if a couple of right wing clowns want to try to downplay my story by saying that I made it up. I'd LOVE for you both to try and have an intelligent conversation in one of the other threads... difference between a liberal and conservative... maybe? But, Mr. Alta simply can't.

[White Doors]

Ridiculous. Not refuted = still possible

Fact - The UN does NOT PAY Canada to be in Afghanistan.

http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/canad...tats_may08.aspx

We are in fact a large contributor to both the UN and Afghanistan.

We aren't doing it for profits.

Will you admit that you and your 'friend' are misinformed?

As a teacher, you should be partial to the truth - one would hope.

You would also know that anecdote is not a good thing to be using to find the facts.

[Alta4ever]

In fact, I even said I don't know which government sent our troops there. It doesn't really matter to me. The fact is that they're there and I don't know if I like that or not. I was throwing it out there as something the guy who started the thread could consider... fully knowing that I couldn't provide him with any citation.

So why do even bother to pretend you are informed? Why bother if you don't understand and are ignorant to the discussion, why bother? Or is it that you just put the miss-information out in hopes that it will sway someone. Even the posters on this forum that I am most at odds with ideologically, have never posted something so asinine. You stated your post as fact with and little doubt with little doubt about. Only to claim ignorance after you where called on it. It would be good to know something about the topic before you post in it, or could it be that you are a troll?

[Kitch]

So why do even bother to pretend you are informed? Why bother if you don't understand and are ignorant to the discussion, why bother? Or is it that you just put the miss-information out in hopes that it will sway someone. Even the posters on this forum that I am most at odds with ideologically, have never posted something so asinine. You stated your post as fact with and little doubt with little doubt about. Only to claim ignorance after you where called on it. It would be good to know something about the topic before you post in it, or could it be that you are a troll?

Bud, there must be something wrong with you mentally. Either you can't read, you don't know how to reason, or you're still so emotionally damaged about your prof and your bad grade that you will lash out at some one who doesn't agree with you.

Who the hell are you to criticize me for throwing info out there that I won't support? You ACTUALLY thought that you could dispute my definition of a liberal by implying that it couldn't be so because your prof gave you a bad grade! You ACTUALLY accused a guy who said that he was homeless and benefited from social programs of not being sure of his own opinions!

Cry me a fucking river kid. On THIS topic, if Martin sent our troops to Afghanistan, then my half hearted accusation of Harper is incorrect and that's that... no? NO, because you feel like this is an opportunity for you to stick it to me. My buddy said what he said, I believe him, can't prove it, and that's that. I'm not expecting that anyone take it seriously if they don't want to. But I am neither a liar nor ignorant.

Challenge me on some other thread bud. Challenge something else that I've said. Assuming that because I'm a teacher I support Jack Layton is your best shot at me. Do I need to explain the logical fallacy there?

[Kitch]

Fact - The UN does NOT PAY Canada to be in Afghanistan.

http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/canad...tats_may08.aspx

We are in fact a large contributor to both the UN and Afghanistan.

We aren't doing it for profits.

Will you admit that you and your 'friend' are misinformed?

As a teacher, you should be partial to the truth - one would hope.

You would also know that anecdote is not a good thing to be using to find the facts.

Dude, thank you for that. I'll explain myself again because I don't expect you to find everything else I've said on the matter.

Replace UN in my original post with NATO... is that better? Or is it still wrong. I'm sure that if money was coming our way, it's more to pay for our presence there, not as a source of revenue. I shouldn't have (unintentionally) implied that.

I will NOT admit that my friend is misinformed. I didn't present details correctly, and, in the end, it doesn't matter anyway because, apparently, Martin sent our troops there.

As a teacher I am exactly what I need to be. Partial to the truth insofar as I/anyone is aware of/capable of knowing the truth. And yes, I am aware that an anecdote does not constitute evidence. I meant only to present an anecdote.

Please don't patronize me, as clearly, I am not a moron.