maplesyrup Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 With all the chatter about the alleged Canadian Alliance appropriation of the venerable Progressive Conservative party, it is surprising how few have spoken of the real takeover -- that of genuine Canadian conservatism by Republicans in the United States. Sir John A. Macdonald is surely twisting in his tomb. Republican takeover of Tories enough to vote NDP I would fathom a guess that this is a widespread view held by Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 More nonsense from maplesyrup. Gee, what a surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 You know the sad part of Maplesyrup restating stuff like this, is that it is really one step away from saying that there exists a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. Very sad and speaks volumes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Had a good talk with an old PC member today and it was nice to be reminded that the CA party had the same roots. The only part of the party to go away with the merger was the Orchard group. They should have been NDP anyway. The Conservatives are the alternative and that is Maplesyrup’s problem. They are credible and he is not. Populism was a long tradition with the Conservatives; Mulroney forgot and thus was the creation of the Reform. We are back united, and ready to govern. Sorry about your luck Maplesyrup. As in the Diefenbaker time it may take two elections to capture Quebec but it will come. The record is still held by the Conservatives 206 seats, how many is the NDP likely to get? A united Canada with a united vision will be presented as the writ drops by the next government. I do apologize that I might antagonize but Maplesyrup in another thread stated I should not be involved in politics. I wanted to remind him that I am not only involved but the party of which I am a member has a real possibility to govern after the next election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderate Centrist Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 I would have to agree with Maplesyrup here. The "New" Conservative Party (read Alliance) regardless of what they really stand for are associated with the Republicanism of the United States. This was fairly open under Stockwell Day and to a lesser extent Manning. It still exists with Harper and we'll see more of those attitudes. Stephen Harper will lead the the "new" party to defeat in the next election. Of this I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 80% of our exports go to the US. Which of those job creating exports would you like to get rid of? It is bad enough that we can not have them take us seriously but when we have a politician say he would like to improve this relationship you dismiss him with a statement like "those attitudes." Can you be clear? I don't want to put words in your mouth. The last time I heard Harper speak on the US relationship he wanted it strengthened so when we had to disagree it could be done with out crippling our economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderate Centrist Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Willy, I am not speaking about trade arrangements here or our relationship to the US. I'm referring rather to domestic issues such as privatized health care, criminal/justice policies which are out of any proportion to occurance of crime, courting Alberta separatists, and a foreign policy which suggests we should act in accordance with US wishes. It is in this area that I perhaps have the most concern over Harper as leader. In the years I've seen him in action he has never demonstrated to me that he has a true understanding of foreign policy. His main concern, and the impression he has given to the country is that we should follow the dictates of American policy regardless of consequence. I don't believe we should have bad relations with the United States. I believe we should have good relations but still conduct foreign policy according to our interests. Harper does not inspire me as a politician, his comments made over the years lead me to mistrust him and the core support of the Alliance party turns me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 I was clear that you are not a Harper supporter. I am one of the old Alliance members and all are welcome to join the New Conservatives but from your other posts, I would not expect you to accept the invitation. I do ask you do be fair when characterizing my party’s stance on different issues. Some may align with Republicans, and that is not always a bad thing but others do not. Clear case and point is public health issuance. The Conservatives do not support private health insurance. They do accept the provincial jurisdiction, and would increase funding to the provinces directly from transfer payments. This is the one thing that might prevent the growth of private health care. A side note: Every family physician in Canada operates a private business that is paid by public health insurance. Is this the private health care that concerns you? Justice policies. They would like to have greater victim’s rights, and longer sentences. This in my opinion is a good idea in many cases. We have police that are at wits ends because as quick as they arrest the criminals they are back out on the streets. Jails are not just rehab centers they are also meant for punishment. Is this radical? You mention Alberta separatists, and I am sure a few members were at one time but I will personally welcome any member of the Bloc into our party as long as they are building a new federation. The Conservatives do not hold any policy that is not base on a federal vision of Canada. It is a shame if the division of powers set in the constitution look like a divisive issue to you. He is clear on foreign policy as well, focus military spending on the niche of peace keeping. Build a stronger foreign service. Don't go out of you way to poke the Americans in the eye. Doesn't sound to bad. I would agree that Harpers focus has been domestic, and the governance issues in Canada. This is very important. Without a united country, with strong institutions we will not be able to have a positive global influence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted April 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 The reality is that had Harper been PM last year, Canada would have gone to war in Iraq. What better reason does a Canadian need not to vote Conservative? Although there are many other good reasons not to vote for Conservatives as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 And the maplesyrup hit-jobs continue. Just more nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted April 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 And the maplesyrup hit-jobs continue. Just more nonsense. Substance - where is it? Just more typical right wing attack the messanger. Doesnt cut it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 The reality is that had Harper been PM last year, Canada would have gone to war in Iraq. What better reason does a Canadian need not to vote for Conservatives? After their successful takeover of the British Labour Party and the Australian Conservatives, the Republicans are now aiming for much bigger Canadian game. Those American Republicans want a beaver head on the wall, and they're going to get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted April 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 Maybe GOP have their own troubles this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 And the maplesyrup hit-jobs continue. Just more nonsense. Substance - where is it? Just more typical right wing attack the messanger. Doesnt cut it here. Where is your substance? If I were to use the same tactics you do I would simply call the NDP the Canadian chapter of the world communist movement and stick this smiley right afterwards . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted April 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 And the maplesyrup hit-jobs continue. Just more nonsense. Substance - where is it? Just more typical right wing attack the messanger. Doesnt cut it here. Where is your substance? If I were to use the same tactics you do I would simply call the NDP the Canadian chapter of the world communist movement and stick this smiley right afterwards . Is that not a bit extreme? No one said CPC are fascist, did they? Canadians really are quite different than the US politically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 Isn't it extreme to resort to the same old Leftist tactic of accusing Conservatives of being unCanadian becuase they hold different political beliefs than you? If Communist is a bit extreme, how about Cuban? And of course Canadians are different, which is why your accusation that the Conservatives are the same is so absurd. Get it? Kapiche? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 The reality is that had Harper been PM last year, Canada would have gone to war in Iraq. Maplesyrup, We don't have Military capability to go to war so wake up and smell the lack of weapons of self defense. We can't even knock down the Danish flag sitting on Canadian soil. Do you understand what solidarity means or only when that solidarity pertains to unions vs. corporations. Maybe you could convince yourself that Hussein is a CEO and Bush, Blair, and Howard are union heads that spent 12 years in passive resistance mode. Does this help you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted April 13, 2014 Report Share Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) omit Edited April 14, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted April 13, 2014 Report Share Posted April 13, 2014 That last post in some indecipherable language made as much sense as MapleSyrup. Since they posted an unsupported topic I'll risk getting a Forum warning......the topic is clownish, the writer, a clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 13, 2014 Report Share Posted April 13, 2014 That last post in some indecipherable language made as much sense as MapleSyrup. Since they posted an unsupported topic I'll risk getting a Forum warning......the topic is clownish, the writer, a clown. It's also 10 years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted April 14, 2014 Report Share Posted April 14, 2014 It's also 10 years old. Guess I was the clown for not seeing that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.