Harper needs to step down

[guyser]

Our PM

Seems to be a pattern for you.

[Smallc]

Our PM got support for a massive majority from every province except Quebec. The Tories even beat the Liberals in Ontario getting 51% of the vote. The Tories are Canada s new truly National Party.

Doesn't change the fact that 38 isn't double 26. And we have 3 national parties, one just isn't that successful and another is going through a period of instability.

[Mr.Canada]

Seems to be a pattern for you.

He is our PM.

Even yours Guyser.

He is all of Canada s PM. We need to come together to embrace our leader and make our country stronger.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[Smallc]

We need to come together to embrace our leader and make our country stronger.

No. I voted for Harper, but Canadians only gave him a minority. As a result of that we have to respect the democratic outcome and realize that Canadians want All of the parties to work togerther to strengthen this country. Not just Mr. Harper got elected that day you know.

Also, not embracing the PM is a democratic right. In a democracy you don't have to agree with the leader of your country.

[Mr.Canada]

delete plz.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[guyser]

He is our PM.

Even yours Guyser.

He is all of Canada s PM. We need to come together to embrace our leader and make our country stronger.

well now, that is certainly a switch. Good on you.

Yes he is. And now we dont.

He got my vote .....once.

[Mr.Canada]

No. I voted for Harper, but Canadians only gave him a minority. As a result of that we have to respect the democratic outcome and realize that Canadians want All of the parties to work togerther to strengthen this country. Not just Mr. Harper got elected that day you know.

Also, not embracing the PM is a democratic right. In a democracy you don't have to agree with the leader of your country.

Why you fighting with me then smallc?

Well there are really just 2 now as our PM Stephan Harper is the defacto leader of the Liberal party now by default as the lame duck continues to quack.

[Smallc]

Well there are really just 2 now as our PM Stephan Harper is the defacto leader of the Liberal party now by default as the lame duck continues to quack.

No, there are 3. The Liberal party exists and will continue to exist. Some day, in the future, it will beat the Conservatives. Its the simple reality of things.

[Slim MacSquinty]

bcchick

"Is that what this is about? Because I said Harper spoke at rallies? (btw, I didn't just say pro-life, I said SSM and pro-life).

In any case, fine, since I don't feel like googling soundbytes from the 6:00 news from 4 years ago, I'll do something just for you!

I will continue to claim that Stephen Harper is a 'scary' conservative, but instead of providing you videos as my 'evidence', I'll present a handful of quotes directly from him, k?"

I've been away, but I can't let this slide:

QUOTE

"In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.

11 years ago during a leftward drift of the social safety net especially in Ontario. Many people agreed and in fact in the hotbed, Harris was elected to sort through this.

QUOTE

"It will come as no surprise to anybody to know that I support the traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, as expressed in our traditional common law."

- Stephen Harper, Hansard, Address in the House of Commons on Bill C-38, February 16, 2005.

The left took over this debate, and there was no debate because of shrill opposition. The reality is this that is the definition of marriage under civil law, other countries have adopted other ways of allowing equal rights of gays without spitting in the eye of the traditionalist view of marriage. Unfortunately the debate never happened. I've heard him speak about this specific issue, he's no gay basher, just didn't feel he needed to attack the religious people of this world to make it happen.

QUOTE

"For taxpayers, however, it’s a rip-off. And it has nothing to do with gender. Both men and women taxpayers will pay additional money to both men and women in the civil service. That’s why the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law."

- Stephen Harper on pay equity, NCC Overview, Fall 1998.

If you ever read this piece of legislation he is referring to you would know that it was silly, in no way is he speaking against gender equity, your foolish if you believe that.

QUOTE

"The Liberals have allowed a handful of tenured judges to create a situation where churches, synagogues, mosques and temples could be compelled to perform marriages that violate their own moral codes."

- Stephen Harper attacking the Liberals on same-sex marriage, News Hound, September 7th 2003. The proposed law specifically precludes any church, synagogue or mosque from having to conduct any marriage which violates their belief system.

At that point in time this was not clear and he's absolutely right that in the absence of good legislation, judges make the law, judges are well biased to the left in this country (by design) and could have compelled religious institutions through charter rights to perform religeous ceremonies that contradicted their religeous tenents. That could have been a travesty of justice.

QUOTE

"Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work."

- Stephen Harper endorsing Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders, who in 2001 called Nelson Mandela "a Communist and terrorist."

I am unsure how the quote and the assertation about Anders fit together. However guilt by association could certainly hurt the Liberals more than any other party since a couple of their recent associates are in jail for adscam.

QUOTE

"Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made ... that this is analogous to race and ethnicity.... (For) anyone in the Liberal party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, 2003.

How can you not agree with this statement, just because you do not agree with gay marriage per se, does not make you in any way a biggot, as stated earlier there were alternatives that remained unexplored in this debate.

QUOTE

"I’m not doing witch-hunts on people’s pasts… If someone does something wrong, there will be action taken. But if somebody doesn’t do anything wrong, we’re not going to take any action… I don’t make volunteer field decisions… but Betty Granger is a riding president, a member in good standing. She’s somebody that other members I’ve talked to think very highly of, and quite frankly, she was the victim of an unfair slur story in the last election campaign."

- Stephen Harper on Betty Granger, one of three Harper leadership organizers in Manitoba. Granger is a candidate from the 2000 election whose remarks about an 'Asian invasion' created controversy. Calgary Herald, January 15th 2002.

Asian invasion was a term used in several places including BC, was not meant as a slur and didn't come out of Harpers mouth, guilt by association is weak.

QUOTE

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task."

- Would-be "second-world strongman" Stephen Harper in his article "It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada," December 12th, 2000.

An apt description of Chretien, pushing social programs, anti american sentiment and being a dictator behind closed doors and a rag tag socialist follower abroad.

QUOTE

"I have always said that controversial issues of a moral or religious nature, such as abortion, should be settled by free votes of MPs, not by party policy."

- Stephen Harper.

Exactly!

Side note on that...

QUOTE

"While [stephen] Harper has not promised to raise pro-life or pro-family legislation he has promised to allow such legislation to be introduced by others and to permit free votes..."

- Anti-abortion Web site LifeSite.net, March 22, 2004.

It's called democracy, got a problem with it?

QUOTE

"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."

- Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.

We have the CHA it's not properly funded by the feds (especially in 1997) and its still not working properly. Something needs to be done, why are we hanging onto this sacred cow?

My God a guy with opinions, find a decisive quote from another political leader in Canada. The guy is frank but not pushing his opinions on other people and none of the quotes you dug up harms him in any way. Find me one piece of legislation that was proposed in the last parliment that pushed any kind of right wing agenda you keep referring to. Canada needs to have several good debates about government and a range of topics, not a bunch of shrill anti's with special interest sacred cows.

[PoliticalCitizen]

The guy is frank but not pushing his opinions on other people and none of the quotes you dug up harms him in any way.

Of course he hasn't... yet.

But IF he eventually gets the majority he craves.... who knows...

[blueblood]

Of course he hasn't... yet.

But IF he eventually gets the majority he craves.... who knows...

I know, he does something the electorate doesn't like the conservatives get ran out of parliament again. This isn't Russia and Putin we're talking about.

[Mr.Canada]

I know, he does something the electorate doesn't like the conservatives get ran out of parliament again. This isn't Russia and Putin we're talking about.

That is utterly false. He has done and passed many things that people didn't like already, yet he has gained seats. Losing argument, sorry.

Mr. Harper puts money into the pockets of everyday families as they can run their own pocketbooks. The Liberals and NDP don't trust families to run their own pocketbooks.

Plain and simple guys/girls.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[capricorn]

Of course he hasn't... yet.

But IF he eventually gets the majority he craves.... who knows...

Be afraid, be very afraid.

[blueblood]

That is utterly false. He has done and passed many things that people didn't like already, yet he has gained seats. Losing argument, sorry.

Mr. Harper puts money into the pockets of everyday families as they can run their own pocketbooks. The Liberals and NDP don't trust families to run their own pocketbooks.

Plain and simple guys/girls.

Wrong!! Mulroney pushed too far in his majority (which in the long run was the right thing to do) and the PC's got anhialated. Push too far and it's bye bye gov't next election. Harper knows this.

A majority gov't is not the keys to the candy store

[Mr.Canada]

Wrong!! Mulroney pushed too far in his majority (which in the long run was the right thing to do) and the PC's got anhialated. Push too far and it's bye bye gov't next election. Harper knows this.

A majority gov't is not the keys to the candy store

Yep, the Liberals should know this lesson well as they stole 2 Billion dollars($2,000,000,000) from the Canadian taxpayers and we said good bye to them. Plus countless RCMP investigations.

The Liberals were far too arrogant and thought they were entitled to their entitlements which included 2 Billion of taxpayer money.

Then they got annihilated not once but TWICE!

The Liberals have still not learned this lesson and suffer to this day from their own arrogance and sense of entitlement.

Mr. Dion still doesn't know this.

[normanchateau]

Bob Rae, the ex NDP? Remember what he did to Ontario.

Didn't Ontario experience the worst recession since the Great Depression when Rae became Premier? Or do you blame Rae for the recession?

Rae was attacked by all the public sector unions because he imposed a wage freeze to help deal with the recession. If Harper were to impose a wage freeze on public sector unions when Canada falls into recession, would you years later say "Remember what he did to Canada"?

Thousands of NDP members quit the NDP because of Rae's austerity measures. NDP MLAs attacked Rae for spending less rather than more to deal with the recession. Organized labour turned against the NDP. Some in the NDP became his most vocal critics. No wonder he eventually quit the NDP in disgust and switched parties.

[scribblet]

Yep, the Liberals should know this lesson well as they stole 2 Billion dollars($2,000,000,000) from the Canadian taxpayers and we said good bye to them. Plus countless RCMP investigations.

The Liberals were far too arrogant and thought they were entitled to their entitlements which included 2 Billion of taxpayer money.

...

Bob Rae as the Premier made mistakes, the biggest being his program which saw most workers actually be docked pay one day month, people will never forgive him for that. He also increased income taxes, gas/diesel taxes and business taxes. I could be wrong, but I believe when he left office we were paying highest marginal personal income tax rates in N.A. I don't believe there was a recession when he took over, but there was when he left. That and he left a much larger deficit then when he took over.

Not sure how another party would have handled it, they might have frozen wages but I doubt they would dock salaries as well.

[marksman]

Mr. Harper puts money into the pockets of everyday families as they can run their own pocketbooks. The Liberals and NDP don't trust families to run their own pocketbooks.

Plain and simple guys/girls.

I love it when propaganda talking points get repeated over and over again. It's plain and simple everyone! Liberals and NDP hate families. Conservatives hate poor people. We could do this all day. Of course we'd all be stupider for repeating such nonsense but that's never really stopped anyone before.

[Mr.Canada]

I love it when propaganda talking points get repeated over and over again. It's plain and simple everyone! Liberals and NDP hate families. Conservatives hate poor people. We could do this all day. Of course we'd all be stupider for repeating such nonsense but that's never really stopped anyone before.

You just don't get it.

A conservative wants to give the poor a hand up where as the rest want to give the poor a hand out.

A conservative wants to decide for them selves how to best spend their money where as a Liberal thinks the government knows best.

Smaller government, less taxes, less government control on our lives.

That's what a conservative wants for the most part.

Edit- How that sounds bad I have no idea.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[stignasty]

You just don't get it.

A conservative wants to give the poor a hand up where as the rest want to give the poor a hand out.

A conservative wants to decide for them selves how to best spend their money where as a Liberal thinks the government knows best.

Smaller government, less taxes, less government control on our lives.

That's what a conservative wants for the most part.

Edit- How that sounds bad I have no idea.

Okay, just as an exercise, please provide examples of each of those scenarios. For example, how does a conservative want to give a "hand up" while the rest (the professor and Mary Ann?) want to give them a hand out.

[M.Dancer]

Okay, just as an exercise, please provide examples of each of those scenarios. For example, how does a conservative want to give a "hand up" while the rest (the professor and Mary Ann?) want to give them a hand out.

Tax cuts to business so that growth is not impeded. As opposed to layton's idea that taxing businesses more to fund social programmes.

[Who's Doing What?]

Yes, his (and Ignatieff's) position was based on false information.

His position is that it is a waste of money. If the price tag was known, he surely wouldn't have supported it.

The number is 5,000 time a day or 1,825,000 times a year. This is the most misleading stat ever. The gun registry is accessed automatically when a CPIC inquiry is made. The police are not making 5,000 gun registry inquiries per day. You'd really have to be a sucker to believe that one. Police associations have spoken out against the gun registry too, you know, calling it useless because as an officer you can never assume someone doesn't have a firearm. Because if you do, you're putting your life at risk. That should speak volumes, if you're listening. There are plenty of statements against the gun registry found on old threads.

At $25 million per year, the gun registry breaks down to over $200,000 per registered long gun homicide. Homicides prevented: 0. Is that worth it in your opinion?

Police associations have also spoken out in favour of the gun registry.

How can you possibly determine that there have been zero homicides prevented?

Can you say with absolute certainty that not one officer is alive today because the police took preventative measures after finding out the home they are going to had a closet full of guns?

I am not about to start putting a price on the lives of our police force.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Who's Doing What?

[PoliticalCitizen]

I know, he does something the electorate doesn't like the conservatives get ran out of parliament again. This isn't Russia and Putin we're talking about.

I sure hope so, bb.

Looking south of the border, however, we see a different picture: Bush gets UNDEMOCRATICALLY appointed as president, starts 2 wars and then manages to get re-elected. Ruins the country and his party is still very popular. How is that possible?

How do we know something similar doesn't happen here with Harper at helm?

[PoliticalCitizen]

Be afraid, be very afraid.

I hear we're headed for the first deficit after continuous surpluses...

I know we're investing in oil while the prices on oil are going down...

I know we're enetering a global recession (at best)...

Should I be worried?

Or should I say like Steve and Jim: "Nah, we're fine, the economy is solid, don't worry about it"?

[capricorn]

I hear we're headed for the first deficit after continuous surpluses...

I know we're investing in oil while the prices on oil are going down...

I know we're enetering a global recession (at best)...

Bad news comes in threes.

Should I be worried?

I don't know your personal circumstances. Only you know the answer.

Or should I say like Steve and Jim: "Nah, we're fine, the economy is solid, don't worry about it"?

You provide a quote. Where is your cite for that?