Did Harper Learn ANYTHING From The BUSH Years ?

KingIggy · May 29, 2009

Why are Neo-Con rightwingers so wreckless and destructive ? Why are Neo-Con rightwingers so blindly hypocritical ? They constantly preach fiscal conservatism and freedom... and then they implement the war on drugs, increase military spending, reduce gov't revenue (through careless tax cuts) and do nothing to help strengthen the social safety net during the recession (which was created by the Neo-Cons in the first place). Next thing you know, we are stuffing our prisons with pot smokers and plunging the country into debt. Are the Conservatives trying to walk Bush's path, in a sly and deceptive manner ? Yes, they are. They are trying to appear moderate, but their core principles are the same : War, Persecution and Greed. Their DOGMA is the same.

Harper=Bush.

Harper is a smug, inflexible Neo-Con who fully endorses the Karl Rove school of Republican electioneering. Harper's slogans, statements and actions are those of the far right.

http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0027

http://votestrategic.ca/ownwords.htm

It's time for the Liberal voters and the NDP voters to work together to VOTE HIM AND HIS PARTY OUT OF PARLIAMENT.

Edited May 29, 2009 by KingIggy

Argus · May 29, 2009

Flush.

There now.

One obnoxious, badly smelling "post" done away with and out to the sewage processing plants.

KingIggy · May 29, 2009

Maybe Argus has been taught by the Northern Neo-Cons to repress and ignore reality.

Hydraboss · May 29, 2009

Flush.

(wait)

Flush.

See Argus? Sometimes you have to do it twice to deal with the really bad ones.

Borg · May 29, 2009

King Iggy?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Borg

Jerry J. Fortin · May 29, 2009

Nothing really bad about Harper, or Iggy for that matter. It is only a matter of preferred ideology, no big deal. Layton strikes me as a little to far to the left but that is just me I guess.

KingIggy · May 30, 2009

Flush.
(wait)

Flush.

See Argus? Sometimes you have to do it twice to deal with the really bad ones.

You laugh now at Iggy, but Iggy will make the Northern Neo-Cons cry a little later on...

Stay tuned...

KingIggy · May 30, 2009

Nothing really bad about Harper, or Iggy for that matter. It is only a matter of preferred ideology, no big deal. Layton strikes me as a little to far to the left but that is just me I guess.

Layton is a center-left social democrat, in the Norwegian tradition.

KingIggy · May 30, 2009

http://votestrategic.ca/ownwords.htm

Bryan · May 30, 2009

A far right Conservative in Canada is still to the left of most Democrats.

Oleg Bach · May 30, 2009

You laugh now at Iggy, but Iggy will make the Northern Neo-Cons cry a little later on...
Stay tuned...

Yes Steven Harper did learn something from the Bush years. That the corporate elite can do what they please..wage war for profit at the expense of human life - that you can lie all you want - That rule of law really has nothing to do with playing by the rules. AND - once you have finished assisting your friends in big buisness by plundering the tax payer by shifting wealth via bail outs - to rich people who screwed up - thus maintaining a status quote that is anti-Darwinian - but presented as Darwinianism because liars are more evolved than soothsayers - THEN he has learned you can leave office and go on a speaking tour with Ignatieff - after the liberal mafia has had a kick at the can - It's all good - that's what he learned...That crime pays - if you are big time.

Keepitsimple · May 30, 2009

Flush once more.

KingIggy - I'll assume that you are only 15 or 16. Give it some time and hopefully, you'll gain a more balanced view of Canadian politics. There are no demons - Liberal or Conservative - or NDP for that matter. Depending on the decade, Liberals or Conservatives represent 30 to 40% of the Canadian voting public. Comments such as yours show a lack of respect for a huge block of Canadian society. You personally may not agree with Harper or the Conservatives at this point in time - and that is your right..... but to disparage the huge number of Canadians from coast to coast who voted for them just alienates you as a noisy fringe element.

Oleg Bach · May 30, 2009

Flush once more.
KingIggy - I'll assume that you are only 15 or 16. Give it some time and hopefully, you'll gain a more balanced view of Canadian politics. There are no demons - Liberal or Conservative - or NDP for that matter. Depending on the decade, Liberals or Conservatives represent 30 to 40% of the Canadian voting public. Comments such as yours show a lack of respect for a huge block of Canadian society. You personally may not agree with Harper or the Conservatives at this point in time - and that is your right..... but to disparage the huge number of Canadians from coast to coast who voted for them just alienates you as a noisy fringe element.

:lol: Personally I like Harper - and I might even learn to like Ignatieff..and may even be sympathetic to the pathetic Layton in time. Of course there are no demons - they are all demons.....and all saints I am sure. As for respect - personally I will respect anyone that empowers the citizens and protects their rights to have personal atonomy - and if they do not respect us - they get none back and lose office eventually. They are representatives not dictators..those that dictate - without listening to the instructions of the citizens can step down..what's wrong with having a group of men and woman who are NOT in politics for personal gain and glory - People who actually care about people? I would rather see a king rule Canada - than a bunch of cut throat opportunist careerist.....as for voting - Again - I would rather see a benevolent and wise dictator run the place - so Harper is best at this time...Ignatieff can wait in the wings for the crown to be passed down.

August1991 · May 30, 2009

Why are Neo-Con rightwingers so wreckless and destructive ? Why are Neo-Con rightwingers so blindly hypocritical ? They constantly preach fiscal conservatism and freedom... and then they implement the war on drugs, increase military spending...

Uh, it was Ignatieff who supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein.

But I still think the president is right when he says that Iraq and the world will be better off with Saddam disarmed, even, if necessary, through force.

Michael Ignatieff, NYT, 23 March 2003

(BTW, the article is a good read if only because it shows how Ignatieff uses verbiage to justify just about anything.)

Smallc · May 30, 2009

(BTW, the article is a good read if only because it shows how Ignatieff uses verbiage to justify just about anything.)

So what about the article he later wrote saying that he was wrong?

Smallc · May 30, 2009

Getting Iraq Wrong

The difference between the two men is that Ignatieff can admit when he's wrong. Harper can't even do so to take advantage of a political opportunity.

Keepitsimple · May 30, 2009

So what about the article he later wrote saying that he was wrong?

You're just proving August's point:

.......because it shows how Ignatieff uses verbiage to justify just about anything

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2009

The difference between the two men is that Ignatieff can admit when he's wrong. Harper can't even do so to take advantage of a political opportunity.

Meaningless with no skin in the game. Ignatieff was an insignificant wonk when he endorsed action in Iraq, and was equally insignificant when he went to the opposite side of the same well, offering watered down wisdom "from the sidelines" yet again.

If Iraq turns from sour to sweet, I suspect that Ignatieff will flip-flop yet again. President Bush didn't have the luxury afforded to such wonks or wonkettes.

noahbody · May 30, 2009

The difference between the two men is that Ignatieff can admit when he's wrong.

The difference is that Ignatieff was supporting his president.

Jerry J. Fortin · May 30, 2009

Iraq? Canada has nothing to do with Iraq because Bush failed to prove his case to the government of the day.

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2009

Iraq? Canada has nothing to do with Iraq because Bush failed to prove his case to the government of the day.

Correct......Canada had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq (except for some exceptions).....still, Ignatieff seized an opportunity to be "worldly"....maybe sell a few more books.

capricorn · May 30, 2009

Iraq? Canada has nothing to do with Iraq because Bush failed to prove his case to the government of the day.

Even if Bush has proved his case, Canada had no military to speak of after the Liberals systematically dismantled it. Either way, Canada going to Iraq was not in the cards.

KingIggy · May 31, 2009

Getting Iraq Wrong
The difference between the two men is that Ignatieff can admit when he's wrong. Harper can't even do so to take advantage of a political opportunity.

Well, it proves the theory that Harper-Bush-Cheney (Limbaugh, Coulter, Rove, Rumsfeld) Neo-Conservatism is more of a dogma (or religion) than a science.

Edited May 31, 2009 by KingIggy

KingIggy · May 31, 2009

Correct......Canada had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq (except for some exceptions).....still, Ignatieff seized an opportunity to be "worldly"....maybe sell a few more books.

I wonder why Neo-Cons who witnessed the Bush-Cheney dogma in action for 8 years, are the first to defend Harper and attack Iggy.

Is it because the cult defends it's own dogmatists ?

Yep.

Those deaf, dumb and BLIND enough to wave the Bush-Cheney flag AFTER the entire world witnessed the destructive and wreckless Bush-Cheney legacy (catastrophe), are the FIRST to help boost the Neo-Con of the North, Stephen Harper.

In fact, anyone who votes for Harper is effectively voting for the Bush-Cheney Neo-Con cult/dogma.

This simply cannot be denied.

Here's the ultra-rightwing pattern :

1) Cut taxes (revenue)

2) Boost military funding

3) Start up the war on drugs (again)

4) Plunge the country into debt

5) Brag about being Fiscally Conservative

Bush's path to sucess, is now Harper's future path.

Those Neo-Cons are retarded, contradictory, hypocritical and blindly destructive.

Edited May 31, 2009 by KingIggy

KingIggy · May 31, 2009

Even if Bush has proved his case, Canada had no military to speak of after the Liberals systematically dismantled it. Either way, Canada going to Iraq was not in the cards.

Again, the only foreign policy Neo-Cons know and understand is rampant, blind faith militarism.