Anyone who has anything against Harper - post here.

[Hcheh]

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.

I don't believe that the actions of Trudeau and Chretien rightfully justifies the media "hatred" that Harper has.. An honest and straight forward politician (notice that I didn't say "good", you don't have to be honest to be "good" at politics) should not be afraid of the press. If the press lays ridiculous claims, send an honest rebuttal right out - I believe that this would be a great strength, something that I would like to see in a politician.

[Alta4ever]

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.

NATO does not pay for troops to be deployed.

We the taxpayers do.

Look I'm sorry that I pushed so hard on this, but I hate all the miss information that goes out to the public, and I will challege it when I see, just as someone would challege me if I posted something that was wrong.

Poltics isn't about the truth, that can be subjective, what isn't is the facts.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Alta4ever

[BC_chick]

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.

You did the same thing about Harper's view on SSM which you compared to Obama, and his views on abortion which you likened to Elizabeth May. You asked me why I don't "like" either of those two.

Come on, you can do better than that, can't you? Do you and Steven Harper share the exact same views on everything? Probably not (that would be kind of creepy). But as far as opinions go, you probably see eye to eye on most issues with the man and that's why you support him.

Well, the same phenomenon is true for me with Elizabeth May or Obama - I share enough of the same opinions to not really be bothered about the ones with which I disagree.

WRT to Bush and Harper, their similarities are not single-issue policies. On environment, on morality, on economic issues, on crime, on foreign-policy.... you can't really dispute the fact that two hold the same values on many different issues.

That's because that's what "like-minded" people do - they share many similar views, not just one or two. Heck, I've read some of your posts with which I agree, but you and I know quite well that we are anything but like-minded....

You can't argue that an overwhelming majority of agreements between two people is completely irrelevant and a "coincidence" just because people on the other end of the spectrum might agree with them on the single-issue here and there.

Edited October 9, 2008 by BC_chick

[Argus]

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

On this forum, if you don't know what you're talking about, and it's very easy to ascertain the truth by a quick google, you should not be making a statement about it without doing that basic research. It implies laziness. And if you're lazy about one subject then the presumption would be that you're lazy about others.

I, and I think others here, saw your suggestion we were in Afghanistan because the UN was paying us as only a little removed from the tinfoil hat crowd.

[Argus]

You did the same thing about Harper's view on SSM which you compared to Obama, and his views on abortion which you likened to Elizabeth May. You asked me why I don't "like" either of those two.

Yeah but I was using it as an ironic demonstration, not suggesting that because of those coincidental views Harper was like Obama or Elizabeth May.

Come on, you can do better than that, can't you? Do you and Steven Harper share the exact same views on everything? Probably not (that would be kind of creepy). But as far as opinions go, you probably see eye to eye on most issues with the man and that's why you support him.

I don't know what Harper thinks of most of the issues I consider important because he's a politician and politicians rarely tell you what they really think. I support him because virtually all the accusations against him are hypocritical or illegitimate when placed in context, and because the other parties are run by people who are far worse than Harper.

WRT to Bush and Harper, their similarities are not single-issue policies. On environment, on morality, on economic issues, on crime, on foreign-policy.... you can't really dispute the fact that two hold the same values on many different issues.

Sure I can. On economics, Bush has consistently run huge deficits. Harper has always hated deficit spending. On morality, both are against criminals and in favour of strong punishment but that's hardly a unique view to conservatives of any stripe. On foreign policy Harper has not really enunciated a clear policy other than supporting Israel. But you could probably compare his overall beliefs with any conservative leader in Europe or elsewhere and find they're pretty much alike. You're selecting Bush - who is a pretty piss-poor example of a conservative of any stripe - because you hate him and so are looking for similarities to Harper. But other than Bush's party somewhat favouring traditional conservative religious beliefs on morality there really isn't all that much there.

I could probably, btw, find more similarities between Layton and Castro. Does that make them two of a kind?

[Argus]

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

Just a tip here; writing this in the very first post after which you've suggested there must be something wrong with the other poster "mentally" can be cause for an irony alert going out to the populace at large.

[White Doors]

I am not a moron.

Jury is still in sequester

[M.Dancer]

I, and I think others here, saw your suggestion we were in Afghanistan because the UN was paying us as only a little removed from the tinfoil hat crowd.

Not removed in the least.

[manwithnoname]

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.

See why you should be upset with the way he has managed our country in the last two years.

By the way we did not have any lysteriosis in our meat either before the famous -Harper's cuts in 2006, the food inspection cuts had been implemented in 2007, we had previously always had it.

That is why the poor are getting on the street, and freezing out in the cold. Have you seen any affordable housing project anywhere? or do you hear they put more hospital beds for long-term residents? that might be more a concern for your mom or gran'ma but it did affect a lot of our system.

How about Human Resources and Employment training for the youth and people living with a disability?

And the accounting of his action, where did that $13 Billion go? and the 2 Billions cuts? and his accounting not matching anything close to the accounting of our Military, they in fact were left out there not knowing half of what they were supposed to be told, had to figure out themselves, how to account to us somewhat.

Mr Harper promised to reduce poverty and yet applied all his cuts on social program that help the one that need the most like women with cancer, I was laughing when he made that promise this morning do some research about what I told you just enter Harper's cuts in Google and try any link that seems of interest to you $2 billions in cut, and we were also $13 Billions ahead, so there was no reason for it.

He made apologies to the Native because our government has been racist enough to never fulfill its promises and then he promise $5.1 Billions for their restructure, they live in chacks; he then cuts their funding before anything he cuts $4.6 ; they still have not got a pot to piss in , excuse the expression but it is the truth.

Unemployment is rampid now for the skilled labour, while he bring a few jobs in, his job is to make the machine of the economy work, that training people, making sure everyone has enough to live, that no one is left to die waiting in an hospital, like the native man that died waiting for about 26 hrs, and what about accoutability, Have you heard him apologize to those who died of Lysteriosis, this was his cut and his responsibility but it cost too much to protect his people, he sees people as an economist, you are either a revenu or a cost; the first he will cater too and in order to do that he will take away the essential of the others to avoid the cost and take away their "right to vote" because they are homeless.

And lets not mention that by letting the oil be extracted so quickly with his method we did fail in our Kyoto accord;

and probably is causing the cataclysm of the melting polar cap, much quicker than anticipated.

Did I make my point if not see my point of view of his Reign:

Visit My Website

Edited October 9, 2008 by manwithnoname

[Argus]

I don't believe that the actions of Trudeau and Chretien rightfully justifies the media "hatred" that Harper has..

I didn't mention them to justify Harper's dislike of the press. I mention them to point out the hypocrisy of someone who supports the Liberals complaining about Harper being a control freak. I could have as easily pointed out that in the NDP it's Layton's way or the highway. He's made that quite clear. You can be pro-life and pro-gay and against the death penalty and still be a Tory in good standing and in his cabinet. You canot be an NDP MP or candidate if you are opposed to abortion or gay rights or in favour of the death penalty. Layton will not allow it. No different opinions are permissible.

And yet Harper is the big mean, controlling guy that these posters fear - while voting for Layton or Dion with no similar care.

[

An honest and straight forward politician (notice that I didn't say "good", you don't have to be honest to be "good" at politics) should not be afraid of the press. If the press lays ridiculous claims, send an honest rebuttal right out -

Nice theory, but it doesn't work. If the press seizes on a sound byte or a particular slant of a statement, or takes it out of context, it doesn't matter how many times you protest. It might cover the protest once, but most likely will just say something like "the minister said his remarks were taken out of context" or something like that.

[Argus]

See why you should be upset with the way he has managed our country in the last two years.

By the way we did not have any lysteriosis in our meat either before the famous -Harper's cuts in 2006 the food inspection we had previously always had.

As pointed out in the media today, the new system which allowed companies to inspect themselves was developed by bureacrats under the Liberal govenrment, and approved by them before they went into action under the Tories. There's a thread on it.

[manwithnoname]

As pointed out in the media today, the new system which allowed companies to inspect themselves was developed by bureacrats under the Liberal govenrment, and approved by them before they went into action under the Tories. There's a thread on it.

He still changed all of 66 cuts - and implemented it without seeing more than a cost, and still has not offer so much as a Sorry, I messed up Canada yet 20 are dead because of it, what is he waiting for?

Afraid to be held responsible, as he should be, a leader steps to the plate. No he just tries to bully, bad-mouth the other's idea but does not see any other way than his even if it goes against all his Nice Promise made as a Speech to the throne...

It does not matter as it is not binding... and who cares for the poor until they are?

[White Doors]

A cataclysym?

oh my!

Nice!

[manwithnoname]

Not removed in the least.

And if it rains and you decide not to vote you might just wake up to a concentration camp and only yourself to blame.

Nice Plan!

You know the more the market and the banks are in trouble the more I see a chance for me to rise instead of going down, I am not yet eating in the garbage but I am certainly not far, but the one who just lost their job are about to join my income level so I am rising; ain't it nice to laugh at all of your trouble you'll say but you are about to be hit by the depression it has been that for me for the last 10 years on my Pension for disability; so yeah I find myself laughing because maybe now there is hope for the poorest, and yes the rich will have to pay. Tit for tat

[Army Guy]

One should also keep in mind that today bonus for Canadian soldiers are pretty healthy, when i talk about bonus i think in Syria a UN mission they were something around 800 plus dollars a month, or higher depending on not Rank but rather how many missions you've had....plus other things such as each soldier is entitled to a free trip home to next of kin, plus a couple of 72 hour passes thrown in there as well...so when you add it all up, it would cost the government to have each soldier there....

I don't think it was ever about our government having a postive cash flow, it was more about being a responsible Nation. and doing what was right at the time.....

To piont the finger at one party and say this is not right is unfair....i don't think any party would have a problem in raising any bonuses we pay our soldiers....

4. How are peacekeepers compensated?

Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a flat rate of a little over US$1,000 per soldier per month. The UN also reimburses countries for equipment. But reimbursements to these countries have been deferred at times because of cash shortages caused by Member States’ failure to pay their dues. Civilian police and other civilian personnel are paid from the peacekeeping budget established for the operation.

Un Peacekeepers

UN

Please note that the Above info is for UN missions only....Afgan is a NATO mission, and does not pay countries for partaking, but rather expects them to show up with an agreed amount of troops and equipment, as it is a defense treaty, rather than a world organization.... Any soldier that partakes in these missions are paid out of thier own governments coffers....For proof of that read the recent report on the cost of the Afgan mission, where all the costs are laid out, line item by line item...

report

www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/PBO-DPB/documents/Afghanistan%20-%20Fiscal%

[White Doors]

And if it rains and you decide not to vote you might just wake up to a concentration camp and only yourself to blame.

Nice Plan!

You know the more the market and the banks are in trouble the more I see a chance for me to rise instead of going down, I am not yet eating in the garbage but I am certainly not far, but the one who just lost their job are about to join my income level so I am rising; ain't it nice to laugh at all of your trouble you'll say but you are about to be hit by the depression it has been that for me for the last 10 years on my Pension for disability; so yeah I find myself laughing because maybe now there is hope for the poorest, and yes the rich will have to pay. Tit for tat

Concentration camp!

awesome!

[noahbody]

He still changed all of 66 cuts - and implemented it without seeing more than a cost, and still has not offer so much as a Sorry, I messed up Canada yet 20 are dead because of it, what is he waiting for?

Funny, I've heard the Liberals boast about getting rid of the deficit a thousand times. Not once have I heard them say sorry for many who died as a result of the deep cuts to medicare funding. They just washed their hands of it and let the provinces take all the blame. Then, they had the nerve to call themselves "The defender of healthcare."

[independent]

Funny, I've heard the Liberals boast about getting rid of the deficit a thousand times. Not once have I heard them say sorry for many who died as a result of the deep cuts to medicare funding. They just washed their hands of it and let the provinces take all the blame. Then, they had the nerve to call themselves "The defender of healthcare."

You do know that healthcare is primarily a provincial issue and the provinces complained when the federal government tried to tie transfer payments to healthcare. Most provinces do not look kindly at interference from the federal government. Don't get be wrong I would like too see the federal government more involved in healthcare issues. The Federal government still has a huge deficit too pay down. Everytime you pay down the debt there is more money for next year because of less interest charges.

[Kitch]

Not removed in the least.

I'm presumed to be akin to that club seemingly because I am on the left of the spectrum. I honestly didn't expect my accusation on this topic to be taken too seriously... if it was, great, if it wasn't great. But never the less, since I started posting on these forums last year... scratch that, since I started expressing leftist views, I've been ridiculed by right leaners before they know a thing about me. Very few people have attacked my logic, and I appreciate those that do... my ideas are not static or set in stone. More often than not people attack people, not ideas. And, I can't speak from the perspective of a right winger talking to lefties, but from my side, righties presume that a person is unintelligent, unreasonable or naive if they don't agree with right leaning views. It appears that the most common tool of the right leaning debater is ridicule! I'll take the heat for THIS thread, but M.Dancer, why did you stop responding to my questions about media consolidation? Why did few people challenge me about my definitions of liberal vs. conservative... and I know that it was read.. SOME people did challenge... but not my definition, my understanding of education. And when I shot back... nothing! Let's play ball kids. I struck out here, but I'm being intentionally walked elsewhere.

How cocky do I sound right now!! Wow.

[kengs333]

Funny, I've heard the Liberals boast about getting rid of the deficit a thousand times. Not once have I heard them say sorry for many who died as a result of the deep cuts to medicare funding. They just washed their hands of it and let the provinces take all the blame. Then, they had the nerve to call themselves "The defender of healthcare."

The Harris Tories happily attacked the Ontario health care system, would have done it with or without Ottawa.

[manwithnoname]

Remember Harper, Help us make him History for what he is doing to our country and its people, read my views, it might be a bit harsh but it is the truth (Not for the sensitives) here:

Visit My Website

I have come up with a plan to Fire Harper as one Nation in one Voice Canada, on election day, come and see what I am talking about here:

http://thebenefactory.ca/FireHarperPetition.htm

Help us Petition the government, for a fairer representation, do it NOW, it's important we all depend on you!

http://thebenefactory.ca/FairVotePetition.htm

Let's protest for the management of our country and its assets, UNITE with us CANADA!

We must lead the world in example of how to, peacefully get rid of the tyrant all over the World.

By the way this lead you to my rant and then you can visit both the Fire Harper link or the Fairer Representation

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 10, 2008 by manwithnoname

[lukin]

This thread is truly hilarious, being anti Harper is like a grade school clique, you join the group, you feel comfortable but you have no idea why.

Frightening, but funny.

This is so true. Why do you think Obama has so much support? It's the "cool" thing to do.

It's a sad state of affairs when people know more about American Idol than what actually happens in our country.

Being a former member of the Liberal Party of Canada, I now often wonder how anyone could vote Liberal or NDP.

A couple years ago a news team interviewed prisoners in a MAx. security prison and ask them who they are voting for. Each and every one of them said Liberal or NDP. That spoke volumes to me.

[cybercoma]

Harper was known for his social conservative views before he became prime minister. Since winning in 2006, he hasn't pushed social conservatism and I'm sure there are many reasons for that, such as political survival. However, I always wonder if he will try to drive social-conservatism should the Conservatives win a majority. Without any clear checks or balances to the prime minster's power, it is very possible; but, it would be political suicide come the following election. Unfortunately, by then, if he does an about face, it will be too late. Having said that, there is nothing Harper has done while in office to suggest he would go that route and I have mostly supported everything he has done thus far.

[Argus]

Harper was known for his social conservative views before he became prime minister. Since winning in 2006, he hasn't pushed social conservatism and I'm sure there are many reasons for that, such as political survival. However, I always wonder if he will try to drive social-conservatism should the Conservatives win a majority. Without any clear checks or balances to the prime minster's power, it is very possible; but, it would be political suicide come the following election. Unfortunately, by then, if he does an about face, it will be too late. Having said that, there is nothing Harper has done while in office to suggest he would go that route and I have mostly supported everything he has done thus far.

It will be too late? You make it sound like banning abortion is irreversible. Even if he were to do that, and the SC didn't frown on it, if he was thrown out next election the next government would simply reverse it. I'm not sure what other horrible conservative laws you think he might put in place but don't think anything he could possibly do would be "too late" by next election, to reverse.

[margrace]

It will be too late? You make it sound like banning abortion is irreversible. Even if he were to do that, and the SC didn't frown on it, if he was thrown out next election the next government would simply reverse it. I'm not sure what other horrible conservative laws you think he might put in place but don't think anything he could possibly do would be "too late" by next election, to reverse.

Ontarions have a good view of what can be done by a Conservative majority and how long it takes to get back to the way it was. Schools for one thing, 407 for another etc.