Are Harper and Obama Going to be Buddies?

M.Dancer · February 20, 2009

(my brother was a delegate for the Kazak team)

Three Kazak women are brag about sons. “My son is soldier. He have rape as many women as want,” say first Latvian. “Zo?” second say, “My son is farmer. He have all potato he want!” Third Latvian wait long time, then say, “My son is die at birth. For him, struggle is over.” “Wow! You are win us,” say others. But all are feel sad.

guyser · February 20, 2009

Three Kazak women are brag about sons. “My son is soldier. He have rape as many women as want,” say first Latvian. “Zo?” second say, “My son is farmer. He have all potato he want!” Third Latvian wait long time, then say, “My son is die at birth. For him, struggle is over.” “Wow! You are win us,” say others. But all are feel sad.

Funny.........but sad

Argus · February 20, 2009

Many many times, and even in 'rush hour'

And yet, you apparently are unaware it can take a couple of hours to get out to Kanata on some nights, or the mess that is the incoming eastern flow from Roclland.

Were you here, by any chance, when they were still running trams down Sparks?

Edited February 20, 2009 by Argus

madmax · February 20, 2009

It is hard to say what a Harper government would do with a majority. I don't think they would ban abortion but I do think new abortion laws would be introduced if not by the government but by private member's bills from the government side.

Agreed.

This is said without acknowledging the restoration of funding by the same Liberals who cut in years prior to end the deficit.

Did this not Happen under the Martin Government, when in a minority position? Prior to that two reports came forth on Health Care. The Romanov Commision and the Mazankowski Senate report on Health Care. Restoring some of the funding, while not implementing any of the findings, has put Health Care on low priority when push comes to shove.

This is said as a purely partisan shot.

I leave it to Argus to defending my partisan sniveling drivel. Thank you Argus.

Forced upon them by Reform? I think you forget that Liberals elected many fiscal conservatives in the 1990s and that was a driving force in turning back from the freespending days of earlier Liberal governments.

The Liberals did not campaign on the fiscal agenda. They benefited from the Reform Ripping the fiscal/populist and Social Conservatives from the Progressive Conservatives. The Liberals also benefited from a poor, yet candid Campaign by Kim Campbell. The Liberals benefits in their OPPOSITION to FREE TRADE, GST, and some expensive Helicopters, which was one of the few money issues the Liberals waded into. It was after the 1993 election and after Reformers went to parliment that changed the direction of our economy.

The Liberals chose not to go into an election or a coalition. The NDP vote against all Tory budgets and only support Liberal ones.

Whatever the reason, and there is always a reason, the fact is, this budget is unlike any in recent memory, and you have the benefit of NOT having to endure a BOB RAE deficit spending budget that accomplishes nothing except raising the deficit. The Liberals have voted 50 Consecutive times with the Conservatives since Dion became leader. So, if the NDP are against ALL Tory Budgets, it appears the Liberals are FOR all Tory Budgets. And therefore, the LPC can take a bit of credit for the poor budgetary performances we have seen since 2006.

Are you to suggest that if the Liberals held a majority, they would NOT be engaging in the deficit spending that they have been preaching? This is the irony that we see with the BLURRED ideologies of the political parties in the last election. Covered a bit in another thread.

And this is why they face problems with their own base. Some will simply not vote or be more willing to vote Liberal next time if Ignatieff indicates a willingness to constrain spending.

Sure, like cuts to health care.

Given the history in the 1990s, the Liberals can now run on a record of reducing spending.

Sure, like cuts to health care.

I believe the deficit could have been broken without resorting to this sort of raiding. In fact, corporate tax and GST revenue would have done the trick albeit, it would have been a little longer.

I snipped alot, but I have no disagreement with anything you wrote in that reply.

That claim has been dismissed by many aboriginal groups.

Its not disputed as much as it is referred to as the low lying fruit. Some of the easier ones were advanced and resolved. The Government policy is to delay and stall and delay and stall and delay delay delay delay delay, which is how things are happening in Ontario. There is no real discussion, but a farce of a show. However, that procedure is no different under a Liberal Administration.

You leave out the provincial NDP?

That's because I don't live where you live. The Support for Temp Agencies has been an intregal part of keeping people from Employment Programs, services and running circles around the Employment Standards Act. The Liberals first line of action is to listen to Agency Lobbyist. The Conservatives like to Promote them publicly.

Perhaps it is the same in your Province? Federally, the NDP is not in a Government position, thus, the quote of CPC Dianne Finley (Now with a new portfolio).

I'm not convinced on the cheap labour argument.

That is why the Liberals and Conservatives Agree.

Only the NDP federally would take opposing views on NAFTA and foreign affairs?

The Liberals support NAFTA and will support Obamas foreign policy in a New York Minute. I expect the Same from the Conservatives. Emerson worked on the same trade deals as a Liberal and as a Conservative. I think it goes without saying that the NDP is the only Federal Party with seats that has opposing views on NAFTA.

And With Foreign Affairs..

BUSH= Torture Light = Ignatieff,

Bush= Guantanamo= Ignatieff, Harper

Bush= Khadr= Harper

Obama=Khadr=Harper

Obama=Guantanamo=Layton

Obama>Torture Light< Harper, Layton

BUSH=NAFTA=Ignatieff, Harper

Obama=>Nafta<Layton (which is opposed)

BUSH=IRAQ=Harper, Ignatieff

OBAMA=>Iraq<Layton

OBAMA=Afghanistan <Harper, Ignatieff, Layton

Harper Ignatieff and Layton all propose an exit strategy/mission change for Afghanistan by a timeline at MAX 2011. I fully expect with Obamas Announcements to focus on Afghanistan, while downsizing and gradual withdrawl happens in Iraq, that it will not be long before both the CPC and the LPC jump up to increase support in Afghanistan and extend activities past 2011. Infact, I expect Ignatieff to do this BEFORE Harper.

One of the other stunning announcements in the September Election was Harpers sudden decision to withdraw in 2011, catching everyone offguard.

Obama being as popular as he is, is likely to sell the Afghan war to Canadians, and I expect Ignatieff will ride on Obamas popularity with a supporting position.

Much of Ignatieffs Foreign Affairs positions come from a US Mindset, which he views as an asset for Canada US relations. There is little difference between pro American Harper and the American Influenced Ignatieff.

The ironic difference of Harper and Ignatieff on Artic Sovereignty is that when the waterways are challenged, Ignatieff is willing to use TRADE as a weapon.

"We believe very strongly that the Northwest passage is an inland waterway and is under Canadian sovereignty, that's the position, and no Liberal Party is ever going to trade that away." Going on to emphasize Canada's strong trading position in terms of oil with the United States will serve as a strong deterrent to the US in continuing on their present course.

Ofcourse, that "Deterrent" will never be used for solving other trade disputes.

Thus as far as NAFTA is concerned the Liberals and Conservatives support it equally.

As for Artic Sovereignty, Harper believes in Militarizing the artic, just not paying for the icebreakers:)

Ignatieff believes our Sovereignty will be protected with OIL.

Perhaps Iggy was out of Canada when Free Trade was Negotiated. He talks like its still 1977.

Edited February 20, 2009 by madmax

guyser · February 20, 2009

And yet, you apparently are unaware it can take a couple of hours to get out to Kanata on some nights, or the mess that is the incoming eastern flow from Roclland.

No not unaware. Just not relevant.

Were you here, by any chance, when they were still running trams down Sparks?

Yup.

Seems the papers didnt make too much of a deal about it the traffic....

Ottawa Sun "A combination of slick, snow-covered roads and several arteries closed for the visit of U.S. President Barack Obama today has slowed the morning commute.

Elsewhere today the drive is proceeding fairly well, with few problems reported despite sometimes slippery road conditions. "

And while this is getting silly, I suppose it will put to rest some misconceptions you may have...

"However, while Ottawans' commute may be long, the city's travel time is not. According to a statistics Canada report from 2006, the region's 66-minute average round-trip daily commute was the second shortest of major Canadian cities behind Edmonton (62 minutes).

In contrast, commuting distances in Toronto and Montreal have barely increased, but a separate Statistics Canada study showed that, over the past decade or so, it has been taking commuters a lot longer to get to and from work in those cities: 22.6 per cent more time in Montreal and 16.2 per cent more time in Toronto.

http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/...07-b5eb54331783

Avg commute times

Oshawa 111 mins

Toronto 79

Montreal 76

Vancouver 67

Calgary 66

Hamilton 65

Ottawa 65

Edmonton 62

http://www.autonet.ca/autos/news/2006/07/13/4818573-sun.html

But we both agree Ottawa put on a good show for the President and that is all that matters.

jdobbin · February 20, 2009

Did this not Happen under the Martin Government, when in a minority position? Prior to that two reports came forth on Health Care. The Romanov Commision and the Mazankowski Senate report on Health Care. Restoring some of the funding, while not implementing any of the findings, has put Health Care on low priority when push comes to shove.

Actually, it started to happen in Chretien's last years as have been detailed here before.

The Liberals did not campaign on the fiscal agenda. They benefited from the Reform Ripping the fiscal/populist and Social Conservatives from the Progressive Conservatives.

The standard campaign from the Liberals according to the NDP have been to campaign from the left, govern from the right. There were enough fiscal conservatives elected by the Liberals to drive home the point that spending needed to get under control. The threat from Reform wasn't a big one. They had no chance in Quebec.

Whatever the reason, and there is always a reason, the fact is, this budget is unlike any in recent memory, and you have the benefit of NOT having to endure a BOB RAE deficit spending budget that accomplishes nothing except raising the deficit. The Liberals have voted 50 Consecutive times with the Conservatives since Dion became leader. So, if the NDP are against ALL Tory Budgets, it appears the Liberals are FOR all Tory Budgets. And therefore, the LPC can take a bit of credit for the poor budgetary performances we have seen since 2006.

I don't disagree. My point is that the Liberals probably not have changed anything by forcing an election.

Are you to suggest that if the Liberals held a majority, they would NOT be engaging in the deficit spending that they have been preaching?

I think the Liberals would have found more cuts in the budget than the Tories would have.

Sure, like cuts to health care.

On everything.

Its not disputed as much as it is referred to as the low lying fruit. Some of the easier ones were advanced and resolved. The Government policy is to delay and stall and delay and stall and delay delay delay delay delay, which is how things are happening in Ontario. There is no real discussion, but a farce of a show. However, that procedure is no different under a Liberal Administration.

You can also point fingers at First Nations who delay in court themselves.

The Liberals support NAFTA and will support Obamas foreign policy in a New York Minute. I expect the Same from the Conservatives. Emerson worked on the same trade deals as a Liberal and as a Conservative. I think it goes without saying that the NDP is the only Federal Party with seats that has opposing views on NAFTA.

Yes, I can see that opening NAFTA would be a winning strategy for the NDP. It is no wonder why they are not in government. Layton would have border shut down.

Harper Ignatieff and Layton all propose an exit strategy/mission change for Afghanistan by a timeline at MAX 2011. I fully expect with Obamas Announcements to focus on Afghanistan, while downsizing and gradual withdrawl happens in Iraq, that it will not be long before both the CPC and the LPC jump up to increase support in Afghanistan and extend activities past 2011. Infact, I expect Ignatieff to do this BEFORE Harper.

I can't see us staying in Kandahar. There has to be some indication that heavy lifting moves around a lot more than it does. We have seen little of that.

The ironic difference of Harper and Ignatieff on Artic Sovereignty is that when the waterways are challenged, Ignatieff is willing to use TRADE as a weapon.
As for Artic Sovereignty, Harper believes in Militarizing the artic, just not paying for the icebreakers:)

Ignatieff believes our Sovereignty will be protected with OIL.

I believe it will be neither. I think it will be protected by recognition of law.

Alta4ever · February 20, 2009

but, but, but... where do them there social conservatives fit within your profound revelations? What's being used to set fear (and damnation!) upon social conservatives to enable their social policy enactments?
really, c'mon - you should give yourself a well deserved wikipedia break

Sorry I don't read wikipedia just use it for small historical references as for the most they get somethings right.

As for social conservatives it is a label that really doesn't work the people you are refering to are more tranditionalist who want the laws to be applied as they were 20 30 40 50 years ago.

Alta4ever · February 20, 2009

your empty suit rhetoric pales in comparison to the attacks from the Republicans on candidate Obama’s legitimacy during the U.S. presidential election campaign. He has a significant resume, both political and educational. Perhaps you subscribe to the Rush Limpballs school openly advocating for an Obama failure. I do believe Obama has his Secretary of State now… no need for your Kissinger obscufication.

His education isn't worth the paper its printed on. he has no policital resume aside from voting present on a good number of bills during his campaign for president. I doubt he ever sat long enough in his senate seat to leave an imprint in it

SSD · February 20, 2009

His education isn't worth the paper its printed on. he has no policital resume aside from voting present on a good number of bills during his campaign for president. I doubt he ever sat long enough in his senate seat to leave an imprint in it

Firstly, he won because people are tired of the old politicians lying to them day-in day-out. He won because he is fresh to Washington and would provide a different view of things. He won because he promised a different approach to foreign affairs. Just look at Hillary right now. She will be sending envoys to Latin America and North Korea. He is more about making dialogue and trading with our enemies rather than bombing them out and driving America further into debt. Ignatieff carries this type of mentality: a more civilized parliament, pragmatism, etc.

Harper, on the other hand, won because Dion's message didn't resonate with Canadians and because Harper scared Canadians before Dion had a chance to explain his story. His first time around was because Martin was too closely tied to the Sponsorship Scandal by the media even though he was cleared of any wrong doing. Harper has yet to win on his message and the fact that his message isn't actually the winning ticket, Ignatieff will wipe the floor clean by the next election.

Alta4ever · February 20, 2009

Firstly, he won because people are tired of the old politicians lying to them day-in day-out. He won because he is fresh to Washington and would provide a different view of things. He won because he promised a different approach to foreign affairs. Just look at Hillary right now. She will be sending envoys to Latin America and North Korea. He is more about making dialogue and trading with our enemies rather than bombing them out and driving America further into debt. Ignatieff carries this type of mentality: a more civilized parliament, pragmatism, etc.
Harper, on the other hand, won because Dion's message didn't resonate with Canadians and because Harper scared Canadians before Dion had a chance to explain his story. His first time around was because Martin was too closely tied to the Sponsorship Scandal by the media even though he was cleared of any wrong doing. Harper has yet to win on his message and the fact that his message isn't actually the winning ticket, Ignatieff will wipe the floor clean by the next election.

Y so now they have fresh face lying to them day in a day what was his transparency and accounablity right the stimulus package wasn't even out long enough for the house to read it before they voted on it. they but it in a pdf format on the internet with scanned picture of the text so you could use text search features on it. It was put at midnight before the vote that it was even released.

well you've just said it he's Jimmy Carter all over again trading with America's enemies want a great policy. Do you poeple even try to pay a little attention to history.

waldo · February 20, 2009

...they but it in a pdf format on the internet with scanned picture of the text so you could (not) use text search features on it. It was put at midnight before the vote that it was even released.

ok, ok... can not help myself - thanks for the genuine laugh... note: I've helped you out by adding your missing "not" (bold enhanced for the Rush Limpballs groupies).

ya see, poor ole Rush Limpballs has been raked over the coals with that little gem... apparently he... and I guess you as you parrot one of your heroes... aren't aware that .pdf files can actually be text searched. Beauty - keep em coming!

fellowtraveller · February 20, 2009

It is hard to say what a Harper government would do with a majority. I don't think they would ban abortion but I do think new abortion laws would be introduced if not by the government but by private member's bills from the government side.

Never .

Happen.

Harper is a pragmatist, and like that better known opponent of abortion former PM Chretien- he knows there are no votes in it. Regradless of personal opinion, he has no political gain in stirring up the pot. Besides, he knows that the majority of Canucks support the current lack of legislation.

SSD · February 20, 2009

Y so now they have fresh face lying to them day in a day what was his transparency and accounablity right the stimulus package wasn't even out long enough for the house to read it before they voted on it. they but it in a pdf format on the internet with scanned picture of the text so you could use text search features on it. It was put at midnight before the vote that it was even released.
well you've just said it he's Jimmy Carter all over again trading with America's enemies want a great policy. Do you poeple even try to pay a little attention to history.

You're very ignorant. You're solution to everything is bombing the enemy. Jimmy Carter was in a different place and time. I didn't defend Barack as president, I defended him as a candidate. Read before you respond, please. Barack is not advocating getting too far involved in other people's business, he is just advocating having good relations with them and thats it.

Have you ever thought about why 9/11 happened? It didn't happen because people just hate America for being America. They attacked because the U.S. was getting too involved in other countries' businesses. Its good to have diplomacy, trade, etc. but it ain't right to send our military over to a country that hasn't even provoked us. Obviously, you are going to give the Afghanistan example but thats a centre of the terrorism network that attacked on 9/11.

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2009

.... Barack is not advocating getting too far involved in other people's business, he is just advocating having good relations with them and thats it.

Except when it involves dropping bombs in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Oleg Bach · February 20, 2009

You're very ignorant. You're solution to everything is bombing the enemy. Jimmy Carter was in a different place and time. I didn't defend Barack as president, I defended him as a candidate. Read before you respond, please. Barack is not advocating getting too far involved in other people's business, he is just advocating having good relations with them and thats it.
Have you ever thought about why 9/11 happened? It didn't happen because people just hate America for being America. They attacked because the U.S. was getting too involved in other countries' businesses. Its good to have diplomacy, trade, etc. but it ain't right to send our military over to a country that hasn't even provoked us. Obviously, you are going to give the Afghanistan example but thats a centre of the terrorism network that attacked on 9/11.

Correction - Saudi Arabia was the centre of the terrorism network - Those in Afghanistan really can't afford to wage a war on the west - but Saudi can --- they payed to have the world trade center taken down ...You do not go after the killer - you track down the person who paid the killer - the faciltitator - not one investigation has been done into how and how much money Saudi put into the attack fund...how come no one bombs them....hugh?

waldo · February 20, 2009

your empty suit rhetoric pales in comparison to the attacks from the Republicans on candidate Obama’s legitimacy during the U.S. presidential election campaign. He has a significant resume, both political and educational. Perhaps you subscribe to the Rush Limpballs school openly advocating for an Obama failure. I do believe Obama has his Secretary of State now… no need for your Kissinger obscufication.
His education isn't worth the paper its printed on. he has no policital resume aside from voting present on a good number of bills during his campaign for president. I doubt he ever sat long enough in his senate seat to leave an imprint in it

sssshhhhh - don't let it out... apparently, that Obama Harvard education helps one attain the highest political office in the land... hey now! Doesn't that Ignatieff fellow also have a Harvard education? Stay tuned.

as for your continued rehashing of the recent U.S. presidential campaign, that Obama voting record has been so thoroughly scrutinized, it’s a shame you can’t move yourself off the Palin points and actually latch onto some of that free-thinking scrutiny.

- yes, Obama voted ‘Present’ as an Illinois state senator… 129 times out of approximately 4000 votes cast – 3% of his votes. 3%. Of those 129 Present votes, about half are attributed to votes cast with other Democratic senators following Democratic party tactical strategies… along with another grouping of his Present votes that were part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills. Each and every one of those 129 Present votes, the 3% of his total voting history, endured the heavy scrutiny of the Republicans during the U.S. Presidential campaign. And yet… you have the audacity to bring it up again.

- as for a rigorous accounting of Obama’s U.S. Congressional Senate voting record, positions, quotes… read Obama's record and gain some respect.

SSD · February 21, 2009

Correction - Saudi Arabia was the centre of the terrorism network - Those in Afghanistan really can't afford to wage a war on the west - but Saudi can --- they payed to have the world trade center taken down ...You do not go after the killer - you track down the person who paid the killer - the faciltitator - not one investigation has been done into how and how much money Saudi put into the attack fund...how come no one bombs them....hugh?

Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US. Afghanistan is where the organization, training, etc., is held.

They paid to have the towers torn down? What are you smoking?

scorpio · February 21, 2009

Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US.

Who funds al qaeda?

SSD · February 21, 2009

Who funds al qaeda?

:lol: The funding comes from all Arab countries, not just Saudi Arabia. Didn't you forget that Bin Laden is rich, himself? Do you really think that some oil family is funding this? Good God, this is 2009, the CIA knows all.

scorpio · February 21, 2009

The funding comes from all Arab countries, not just Saudi Arabia. Didn't you forget that Bin Laden is rich, himself? Do you really think that some oil family is funding this? Good God, this is 2009, the CIA knows all.

I didn't say anything about oil families. Here, read this:

"Saudi Arabia remains the world’s leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration’s top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.

Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world,” Levey said under questioning. source

scorpio · February 21, 2009

deleted

Edited February 21, 2009 by scorpio

scorpio · February 21, 2009

well you've just said it he's Jimmy Carter all over again trading with America's enemies want a great policy. Do you poeple even try to pay a little attention to history.

Kinda like this great trading part'ner

Edited February 21, 2009 by scorpio

85RZ500 · February 21, 2009

Ignatieff will wipe the floor clean by the next election.

LOL, you're smokin' some weird s--- there bud.

Did you catch the pic of the Convenient Canadian and Obama sitting together? Obama had his legs folded like a gentleman and Ignatief like a backwoods farmer. The guy is an embarrasment to this country.

Maybe he'd fit in better in the UK or is it the US or wherever the hell he's been holed up for the last three decades.

SSD · February 21, 2009

LOL, you're smokin' some weird s--- there bud.
Did you catch the pic of the Convenient Canadian and Obama sitting together? Obama had his legs folded like a gentleman and Ignatief like a backwoods farmer. The guy is an embarrasment to this country.

Maybe he'd fit in better in the UK or is it the US or wherever the hell he's been holed up for the last three decades.

Can I ask you a question? Are you a guy or a girl? A lot of guys are not able to fold their legs the way Obama can. I can't. Its the way the body has been built. Oh yeah, what difference does it make how one folds their legs? Wow...you right wingers and you're fear of Liberals.

Vancouver King · February 21, 2009

This meeting was a liberal dream. Obama's focus on global warming means Harper has no more excuses for environmental inaction and resulted in his vow to coordinate programs with the Americans. Who would have thunk it, our PM's habit of emulating Bush carries over to the new administration.

Should be interesting to see Tory reaction to our two "integrated economies" when America nationalizes it's major banks.