Paul Martin, or Stephen Harper

[Alliance Fanatic]

Which one is more moderate and intelligent, Stephen Harper, or Paul Martin. Yesterday on CBC the liberals were trying to paint Harper as extremist, but whats so extremist about Harper. The liberals try to show that Harper as Alberta first. Just wait a minute, is'nt it Quebec that brought in more provincial rights, and took more jurisdiction over their own affairs, why is'nt Martin attacking Quebecois. If a province wants to have more jurisdiction over policing, taxes, etc. Why not, whats so horrible about it.

Whats so extremist about Harper's social policies, Harper's social policies are about the same as John Kerry's, both are supportive of social unions, and both believe in free votes when it comes to abortion and gay rights. Immigration, Harper supports the current level of immigration at 250,000, whats so extremist. Harper's position on health care is the same as Kerry's and if anything is more liberal.

So whats behind the liberal smear campaign of calling Harper extremist, if you say it loud enough, and enough times people will come to believe it. Hey if it worked for Hitler in the early 30's when he created the big lie, then it'll work for Martin.

Shame!!!

[falling leaf]

Alliance Fanatic

Which one is more moderate and intelligent, Stephen Harper, or Paul Martin.

I would say Stephen Harper is more intelligent than Paul Martin !

Paul Martin lost all crediablity with me yesterday when Labor leader Dave Haggard , former NDP member in B.C will run in New Westminsters/ Coquitlam in the coming election for liberal party..

Whats next a merger between NDP and LIberals?

[Michael Hardner]

Which one is more moderate and intelligent, Stephen Harper, or Paul Martin. Yesterday on CBC the liberals were trying to paint Harper as extremist, but whats so extremist about Harper. The liberals try to show that Harper as Alberta first. Just wait a minute, is'nt it Quebec that brought in more provincial rights, and took more jurisdiction over their own affairs, why is'nt Martin attacking Quebecois. If a province wants to have more jurisdiction over policing, taxes, etc. Why not, whats so horrible about it.

Whats so extremist about Harper's social policies, Harper's social policies are about the same as John Kerry's, both are supportive of social unions, and both believe in free votes when it comes to abortion and gay rights. Immigration, Harper supports the current level of immigration at 250,000, whats so extremist. Harper's position on health care is the same as Kerry's and if anything is more liberal.

Yes, everything is relative. We'll have to wait for the election campaign to (hopefully) read the fine print on the CPC promises.

So whats behind the liberal smear campaign of calling Harper extremist, if you say it loud enough, and enough times people will come to believe it. Hey if it worked for Hitler in the early 30's when he created the big lie, then it'll work for Martin.

Well, the CPC knew about Stephen's past when they elected him and it's fair game in politics to bring it up, so what's the big deal ? If the people are satisfied with his answer then the Liberals will look desperate if they keep harp(er)ing on it.

Paul Martin's past will certainly be an issue in the election, so why not Harper's ?

Falling Leaf:

Whats next a merger between NDP and LIberals? 

I will ask you the same question I've asked others here. Who would Harper coalize (coagulate ?) with in order to form a governing party ? The Bloc ?

[willy]

Michael Hardner,

I will ask you the same question I've asked others here. Who would Harper coalize (coagulate ?) with in order to form a governing party ? The Bloc ?

The Conservatives will take away Liberal support and if not they will not form government. With the radical left (and a couple separatists) becoming so prominent in the Liberal party as candidates the business support the Liberals enjoys will soon disappear when they realize the Conservatives can actually form government.

[August1991]

Joe Clark thinks that Martin is better suited to be PM than Harper.

CTV Clip

Clark never had much judgment.

[Seveneighty]

Yesterday on CBC the liberals were trying to paint Harper as extremist, but whats so extremist about Harper.

Well, Harper's out-of-the-mainstream "extremist" tendencies are exemplified by the fact that you, of all people, don't see anything "extremist" about him.

[Alliance Fanatic]

So I'm guessing your a left wing new democrat, who thinks that Bev Meslo, Svend Robinson, and Jack Layton are in the mainstream. I believe that we should pull the mainstream back to the right, I'm getting tired of living in a sewer.

[Black Dog]

I believe that we should pull the mainstream back to the right, I'm getting tired of living in a sewer.

Considering you're usually full of crap, I would think you'd be right at home in a sewer.

[August1991]

Considering you're usually full of crap, I would think you'd be right at home in a sewer.

That comment is personal, BD, and has no place in civilized debate.

In any case, I thought you believed we should help and believe in our fellow man. Your comment is rather typical of the "screw the jerks" attitude you supposedly deplore.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Say Black Dog, are'nt you the one that thinks Western Civilization is evil. By the way look at California, and Holland, each were led by left wing, socialist, types of governments. Now Holland's in a rut and has a reputation of being a sewer, and crime and poverty are rampant in California.

By the way are'nt your friends at the ACLU the ones that want a socially liberal civilization the same people that defend NAMBLA's right to produce materials that tell child molestors how to rape little boys. So my assertion that left wingers want us all to live in a sewer is due to ACLU's beliefs.

[August1991]

The ACLU defends your right to say nonsense, AlliEx. So do I. But be polite please, we're Canadian.

[Seveneighty]

So I'm guessing your a left wing new democrat, who thinks that Bev Meslo, Svend Robinson, and Jack Layton are in the mainstream.

Absolutely not.

I'm a moderate, small-L liberal.

I'll be voting Liberal in this election because, quite frankly, there isn't a better choice for me. NDP is too socialist and has no chance of winning in my area anyway, whereas the Liberals have a miniscule chance of winning it. And I would NEVER vote for the Alliance Conservatives. The thought of Republicanizing my country just sickens the hell out of me.

Canada's right has moved further right, it seems to me. It follows how America's formerly-conservative party, the Republicans, have moved right (on some issues at least, such as foreign policy and taxes, while going far left on things like domestic spending).

If Canada became the new Mini Bush Country, I'd have to find another country to live in.

[udawg]

I hardly think that the Stephen Harper Conservatives are going to be a threat to our great leftist values. They're more to the right than the Liberals, but they're supposed to be.

And I have to say, a little right-icizing of our nation couldn't hurt. Be nice to have an actual military for the first time in a decade. Or a foreign policy that actually involves foreign nations.

[Seveneighty]

As far as I've seen, the Conservative Party tries to base itself on the Republican Party of the United States. That in itself is extreme cause for concern.

[Alliance Fanatic]

How is the conservative party like the republican party.

[Black Dog]

How is the conservative party like the republican party.

Both reject gay marriage.

Both oppose abortion.

Both favour increased military spending and the "war on terror".

Both favour private health insurance.

Both favor free-trade and tax cuts, two hallmarks of the neoliberal economic agenda.

The Cons want closer ties to the U.S.. The Republicans want their allies to fall in line behind the U.S. at all times.

the list goes on....

That comment is personal, BD, and has no place in civilized debate.

I agree, but then AF's complete and consistent disregard for facts, proof or any other hallmarks of "civilized debate" show he has no interest in engaging in it. I'm simply humouring him.

[willy]

Black Dog, to have credibility at least read the Conservative policy.

http://www.conservative.ca/english/documen...ents/policy.pdf

Not all is covered in this document but it would look a little like this. Some of this might be my interpretation.

* Free vote on gay marriage and the idea of unions seems to fly without much debate.

* They do favour increased military spending. Don’t you or should our soldiers use canoes and through rocks.

* They favour more flexibility for the provinces in health care but will uphold the Canada Health Act. They want to increase direct funding to the provinces for the provision of health care. Private insurance has never been discussed or proposed.

(Provincial authority: Contracting out of service is front and center for flexibility, accountability and reducing costs. Is this really privatizing health care?)

* Free trade and tax cuts sure.

* Want a closer relationship with the US so when we have to disagree we can do it without crippling our economy.

* As for abortion, this is not on the agenda. But I have to ask BD do you like abortion. What is it to favor it? No one wants to see women go through having abortions, especially kids. How we prevent this is where the parties differ. This is a practical debate that needs to take place to help out young people to make better choices so they don't have to make this one.

[Black Dog]

Thing about policy documents is, you kinda have to read between the lines a little, as they tend to be quite vague.

Free vote on gay marriage and the idea of unions seems to fly without much debate.

"Unions" are not marriages.

* They do favour increased military spending. Don’t you or should our soldiers use canoes and through rocks.

False dichotomy. Spending on what areas and for what purpose? Will a bolstered Canadian military follow its own foreign policy, or simply kow-tow to the U.S.'s wishes (remember: Harper wanted us to join the Iraq debacle)?

They favour more flexibility for the provinces in health care but will uphold the Canada Health Act. They want to increase direct funding to the provinces for the provision of health care. Private insurance has never been discussed or proposed. Contracting out of service is front and center for flexibility, accountability and reducing costs.

The policy doc says nothing about respecting the provisions of the CHA, nor does it say they want to increase funding to the provinces, only that they will provide "sustainable" federal funding. It does however, give the provinces a lot of wiggle room in terms of "setting priorities for health care services. In other words if, say, Alberta wanted to open the door for private insurance, they'd be okay with that. As well, a Con government "will be open to innovations which would reduce waiting lists, improve the quality of care, and ensure better coordination and information sharing in the delivery of health," which are all buzzwords that get thrown around by Fraser Institute types a lot with regard to private health care.

* Free trade and tax cuts sure.

Tax cuts are not the biggest priority for Cnadians. A recent poll by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada indicated the top priorities for Canadians are more spending on health care, improved federal-provincial cooperation and increased funding of education and training.

As I said, tax cuts (particularly business and capital gains tax relief, which predominately benefit the wealthy) are a big part of the neoliberal economic agenda espoused by the G.O.P in the States and the Conservatories here.

Want a closer relationship with the US so when we have to disagree we can do it without crippling our economy.

And how will they pull that off? My guess is, and if Harpo's Iraq stance is an indicator, a Conservative government would avoid such damage by not disagreeing with the States.

Anyway, it seems all my assessments of Con ploicy vis a vis the Republicans was pretty accurate, n'est pas?

But I have to ask BD do you like abortion. What is it to favor it? No one wants to see women go through having abortions, especially kids. How we prevent this is where the parties differ. This is a practical debate that needs to take place to help out young people to make better choices so they don't have to make this one.

I don't like abortion, but I acknowledge and support woman's right to choose. I also support increasing funding for sexual education and improving access to birth control for young people to enable them to make informed sexual choices and decrease risks.

[willy]

Thing about policy documents is, you kinda have to read between the lines a little, as they tend to be quite vague.

Policy is for direction. Look to intention and then read between the lines.

You see The Conservatives as evil, corrupt business people trying to exploit the world (correct me if I am wrong about your point of view).

I see the political organization of The Conservatives as people who want to serve their communities, and they believe that government has a role to play. This role is facilitator, adjudicator and safety net.

How we want to help the world is different than our socialist friends. I don’t think socialist are evil, I personally like the fact they are trying to do good.( I do question what they define as good sometimes) So are The Conservatives. I am involved in politics to help create a community that can choose its own path, which gives the poor a hand up and help people be responsible.

I could argue your list of criticisms but you would still only see an ulterior motive. There are none.

Some people in all political parties are not to be trusted. The nature of politics corrupts. We need to protect against this. The corruption is equal to all political leanings.

Having a party run and implement a strong accountability platform is in the interest of all politicians and Canadians. We need to trust our institutions.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I don't think that people on this forum should pay attention to some of the left leaning members. All they ever say is "Conservatives are Bush backing, Bible thumpers, who are all homophobic and racist". The fact is that it is hard to really believe anything that comes out their mouth, it seems that they were all brainwashed on Rabble.

PS: Whatever happened to Gugsy, Sir Springer, Right Wing Ramber, Neal, and Pellaken. The original members of Mapleleafweb.

[August1991]

Here's what the Toronto Star's editorial board came up with. (Note that they make Mulroney seem 'moderate' to better skewer Harper as an extremist).

Clark's vilification of Harper as an untried and intolerant extremist stands in stark contrast to an endorsement from another former Tory prime minister. On the weekend, Brian Mulroney rather prematurely praised Harper for leading "a moderate, successful Conservative party."

It has shown itself to be no such thing. The Conservatives do not offer a broad national alternative that will draw support from a wide cross-section of Canadians. Nor do they show any inclination to mend fences with marginalized progressives.

Toronto Star Editorial

This campaign will be ugly in several ways but I think the most ugly may well be the presentation of Harper in Ontario as an "out-of-touch, naive, Western fanatic". "Stockwell Day Part II".

Mike Harris overcame being painted an extremist but he at least came from North Bay. Calgary is beyond the pale. (Harper might try noting his place of birth.)

[Black Dog]

I don't think that people on this forum should pay attention to some of the left leaning members. All they ever say is "Conservatives are Bush backing, Bible thumpers, who are all homophobic and racist".

Not all conservatives (in fact, I believe I expressed the opposite sentiment in another post). Just you.

You see The Conservatives as evil, corrupt business people trying to exploit the world (correct me if I am wrong about your point of view).

Evil isn't the word (indeed, it's one that gets bandied about all too freely these days). I think the Conservatives have an agenda and it's not one that involves looking out for the best interests of all Canadians. The Conservative agenda puts profit and business ahead of people.

I could argue your list of criticisms but you would still only see an ulterior motive.

I've seen too much of this brand of government in Alberta to trust the motives of a party with the same idealogical underpinings.

Some people in all political parties are not to be trusted. The nature of politics corrupts. We need to protect against this. The corruption is equal to all political leanings.

Agreed!

[Fortunata]

Harper:

“Thank you for saying to our friends in the United States of America, you are our ally, our neighbour, and our best friend in the whole wide world. And when your brave men and women give their lives for freedom and democracy we are not neutral. We do not stand on the sidelines; we're for the disarmament of Saddam and the liberation of the people of Iraq.” Friends of America Rally, April 4, 2003.

“Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory.” House of Commons, April 1, 2003.

“It is inherently dangerous to allow a country such as Iraq to retain weapons of mass destruction, particularly in light of its past aggressive behaviour. If the world community fails to disarm Iraq, we fear that other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can have these most deadly of weapons to systematically defy international resolutions and that the world will do nothing to stop them.” House of Commons, March 20, 2003."

Harper's position on Iraq alone is enough to question his leadership abilities. If it were up to Harper we would have been in Iraq, lack of troops, equipment notwithstanding. His reasoning? We must stand beside our neighbour (whether they are right or wrong). How much else would he be willing to give up to stand beside them? Would we have any sovereignty left by the time we could vote him out?

[Hugo]

If it were up to Harper we would have been in Iraq, lack of troops, equipment notwithstanding.

Instead of which, Jean Chretien was permitted to decide a Canadian policy based upon continued tolerance of Iraqi human rights abuses in exchange for the continuance of the lucrative oil deals that Chretien's family held with Saddam.

It's all very well to want a foreign policy independent of the US, but when that means you are siding with international murderers and criminals of the most egregious kind such as Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro, and giving harbour and comfort to the friends of Osama bin Laden, is that what you would like Canada to stand for internationally?

Would we have any sovereignty left by the time we could vote him out?

Does Canada have any pride left now? Liberal foreign policy has made it clear that Canada values profit over human life, is willing to tolerate any injustice as long as they are personally making money from it, and is happy to help out the scum of the earth against the big, bad USA with her silly notions of human rights, justice and democracy.