Harper

[Topaz]

As far as PMs come, I don't think Harper is not one of the better PM's and the following article may supply the reasons he's a so-so PM. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/680335

[Keepitsimple]

As far as PMs come, I don't think Harper is not one of the better PM's and the following article may supply the reasons he's a so-so PM. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/680335

I don't think Harper is not one of the better PM's

That's a double negative - that means he is one of the better PM's. I don't think The Star is happy with Mr. Ignatieff's low profile. For the past week, they have been blasting Harper and the Conservatives on a variety of fronts. In addition to Haroon's column, Christopher Hume had a bid column calling the government and Harper racist and they've had Suaad Hagi Mohamud on the front pages all week. Having said all that, I really like how Harper is engaging the world. We are standing on principles and making a difference - no matter how small that difference may be. With China, we made our point about Human Rights - and continue to do so. Even though we're now opening trade doors - they know where we stand. Even if it doesn't make much of a difference, I feel good that we've sent the message. Principle - not mealy mouthed "nuanced" platitudes. On Israel, we've made it clear that democracy gets our support over terrorism every time. We can still disagree but democracy wins every time. Principle. On Climate Change - Skeptic or not, Harper and the Conservatives have rightly followed a road that has to include India, China and the US - otherwise, there is no point. All the talk about Canada setting an example is hand-wringing hot air. Principled and pragmatic. On Mexican Visas......can anyone doubt that we are experiencing a flood of bogus refugee claims? That's a fact. So what, so a few Mexicans have their vacations disrupted - that too will pass and like many other countries, they'll need a visa to come to Canada. And guess what? The bogus claims have almost immediately slowed to a trickle. Common sense.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

I don't think he's bad when it comes to issues abroad. The only things that I really dislike are a ) his lack of a response to attacks on Canadian health care in the US (he goes on TV there for other things, why not this), and b ) the way he and his ministers went around lying about the Constitution in December. Those things aside, he has done a relatively good job in terms of management of the country, and though I will never vote for a party he leads as a result of b (I voted for them last time), I'm not in a hurry to see an election to force him out.

[noahbody]

his lack of a response to attacks on Canadian health care in the US (he goes on TV there for other things, why not this)

Unlike economic matters, how Americans view our health care system is irrelevant. Aside from that, our health care system is something that should be improved; not defended as a sacred cow.

Edited August 14, 2009 by noahbody

[Smallc]

The views of American's is not irrelevant when their media spills over into Canada. The Prime Minister knows that. Oh, and I didn't say that our system was perfect, in fact I have said the opposite many times, so don't put words in my mouth. I expect Stephen Harper to defend programs of his government. He's been rather silent on everything lately, but on this issue it bothers me.

[bush_cheney2004]

Unlink economic matters, how Americans view our health care system is irrelevant. Aside from that, our health care system is something that should be improved; not defended as a sacred cow.

Indeed...should the American president vigorously defend US "systems" whenever someone takes pot shots in Canadian media (a routine happenstance) ?

[Moonbox]

The views of American's is not irrelevant when their media spills over into Canada. The Prime Minister knows that.

We don't need Harper acknowledging or in any way getting involved in partisan American politics. The only way to defend the Canadian Health Care system is to compare it to the Americans', and that's basically an attack on American politics and values.

When you're the leader of the country, it's your responsibility to maintain good relations with your neighbours. Getting involved in squabbles with the American media and politicians serves ZERO productive ends.

Canadians know better than to believe what Americans say about our system. When I had a problem with my eye years ago I got a CT scan the following day and an MRI the following week. Sure there are mistakes and problems with our system, but it's a lot better than having something like 20-25% of the population with no health care coverage at all.

Some partisan hack down south came up here SEARCHING for a person who had a bad government health care experience. I could do the same down south and find tons of horrible examples of people with terrible and debilitating health conditions that are easily fixed but only for people who make enough money. It's only the idiots that put any credence in the sort of attacks the American media fires on our system, and there's no point in our PM getting involved with idiots.

Edit: Just to add, the Toronto Star has absolutely no credibility when it comes to federal politics. It's rides harder on the Liberal pole than any newspaper in Canada and does so without shame.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Moonbox

[Keepitsimple]

I don't think he's bad when it comes to issues abroad. The only things that I really dislike are a ) his lack of a response to attacks on Canadian health care in the US (he goes on TV there for other things, why not this), and b ) the way he and his ministers went around lying about the Constitution in December. Those things aside, he has done a relatively good job in terms of management of the country, and though I will never vote for a party he leads as a result of b (I voted for them last time), I'm not in a hurry to see an election to force him out.

Smallc - how did they lie about the Constitution? I think I know where you're coming from but I'd genuinely like to look into what you are claiming.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't think he's bad when it comes to issues abroad. The only things that I really dislike are a ) his lack of a response to attacks on Canadian health care in the US (he goes on TV there for other things, why not this), and b ) the way he and his ministers went around lying about the Constitution in December. Those things aside, he has done a relatively good job in terms of management of the country, and though I will never vote for a party he leads as a result of b (I voted for them last time), I'm not in a hurry to see an election to force him out.

It didn't take me long to find all the "lies" and I hope you'll agree that they are all technicalities - and fall well short of being lies. I'm hoping you'll at least give this some more thought......because as a Canadian, I was very, very upset that our country could conceivably be run with the Bloc being part of the government - as you'll see supported by my comments below.

•In Canada, he said, the government "has always been chosen by the people." FALSE. To begin with, under our electoral system, we do not vote for governments. We vote for MPs. The Governor-General asks MPs to form governments. The Prime Minister isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.

Secondly, Harper seems to have forgotten the King/Byng affair. After a confidence vote in 1926, which King lost, Arthur Meighen was asked by Governor-General Lord Byng to form a government, which he did, losing a confidence vote himself a few days later. Oddly, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon made the same mistake yesterday.

That is a technicality that very few people could ever relate to. When a citizen enters the polling booth, almost everyone is consciously voting for a party. The odd person may actually mote for an MP from a different party because they somehow have connected with them - but that is very rare.....and King/Byng didn't have the Bloc - the situation was much clearer and the number of seats much closer. So the thrust of the statement is true, not false.

•"The Opposition," said Harper, "wants to overturn the results of [the] election." FALSE. The results stay exactly the same: the MPs who were elected remain MPs. As noted, Canadian electors do not elect governments.

This is just a coninuation of the previous technicality.

•The proposed coalition is entering into an alliance with separatists, Harper claimed. FALSE. The Bloc Québécois is not a formal part of the coalition. It has pledged to support the coalition on confidence motions, but not on the routine business of the House.

Formal or not, they need the official support of the Bloc - and the GG would have to demand it if it got that far. The NDP and Liberals only total 113 seats - far short of the Conservatives' 144. If you were GG, would you allow 113 elected MP's to rule in place of 144 without the formal agreement of the Bloc? The statement is true - not false.

•The "Opposition (parties have) no democratic right" to proceed with their plans, Harper said. FALSE. On the contrary, under our Constitution, they have every democratic right to vote non-confidence in the Conservative government and to make their case to the Governor-General that they could form a government themselves.

They absolutely have the right to bring down the government and they have every right to go to the GG....but as I said above, without the formal agreement of the Bloc, it would be a non-starter. So I guess this one is technically false but it was very disingenuous (sneaky, slippery, etc) of the NDP and the Liberals to try and exclude the Bloc from the formal coalition. The Bloc didn't want to associate itself with federalist parties but without their formal agreement - in writing as part of the coalition - we'd be back to 113 seats against 144 - and if by some disastrous miracle, the GG allowed it - it would amount to a coup d'etat.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Wilber]

Unlink economic matters, how Americans view our health care system is irrelevant. Aside from that, our health care system is something that should be improved; not defended as a sacred cow.

Couldn't agree more. Other than the entertainment value of the current health care debate in the US, I don't see why Canadians should be so concerned about what they think or ultimately do about it. Let's deal with our own problems.

[eyeball]

Harper

Does he embarrasses Canada?

I bet its more a case of Canada embarrassing Harper. He seems to represent a constituency that is often running the country down by saying its too socialist or not patriotic or religous enough.

[Craig1]

I think the guy is a goof he promised NOT to run a defecit he lied to us all for a economist hes been dead wrong about everything. He disgrased us at the G8 made our country look stupid with his lies. Other than that for a politician hes not to bad.

[Smallc]

It didn't take me long to find all the "lies" and I hope you'll agree that they are all technicalities

They were not technicalities they were out and out lies. It doesn't matter how you felt about them. They were nothing but lies. Constitutional scholars were do upset they even wrote a book about it.

Oh, and it's not about the size of the governing coalition, it's about the confidence of the house. As I said...lies.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Smallc

[noahbody]

He seems to represent a constituency that is often running the country down by saying its too socialist or not patriotic or religous enough.

Well, if it's often doing so, you shouldn't have a problem providing some citations for each. Thanks in advance.

[Moonbox]

He disgrased us at the G8 made our country look stupid with his lies. Other than that for a politician hes not to bad.

Pretty sure he didn't do that at all. That's more just wishful thinking and you making things up and exaggerating the significance of mundane events.

[Bonam]

I think Harper has been a lot more presentable and respectable at international events than his recent predecessors, such as Martin or Chretien.

[Craig1]

Pretty sure he didn't do that at all. That's more just wishful thinking and you making things up and exaggerating the significance of mundane events.

He said "a new group of industrialized countries might be formed that won't include Canada". he also goes on to say "Canada could be excluded from a new body to replace the G8".

Talk about a crack pot conspiracy theorist The guy has no credability.

[Smallc]

I think Harper has been a lot more presentable and respectable at international events than his recent predecessors, such as Martin or Chretien.

I don't see what was so bad about Martin, and leaders and business people the world over respected Chretien.

[Craig1]

I don't see what was so bad about Martin, and leaders and business people the world over respected Chretien.

Thats cause his family was supplying them with Blow

[Moonbox]

He said "a new group of industrialized countries might be formed that won't include Canada". he also goes on to say "Canada could be excluded from a new body to replace the G8".

Talk about a crack pot conspiracy theorist The guy has no credability.

When you use words like, "might" and "could," it means you're talking about scenarios. In this case he wanted to ensure that Canada remains relevant as a world trading partner and that these things WOULD NOT happen.

OMG THAT IS SO EMBARRASSING.

If we're going to talk crack pots and credibility, you should maybe practice some critical thinking skills and learn the meaning of cogency. Look it up in the dictionary.

[Moonbox]

and leaders and business people the world over respected Chretien.

Business leaders respected him because they financed his campaigns and he rewarded them for it.

As for respect throughout the world, I'd love to see something to back that up. That's news to me.

[eyeball]

Well, if it's often doing so, you shouldn't have a problem providing some citations for each. Thanks in advance.

Link

Here's one at least. Surely you've been posting enough around here to recognize the tone.

Edited August 14, 2009 by eyeball

[Smallc]

As for respect throughout the world, I'd love to see something to back that up. That's news to me.

They almost made him Secretary General of the United Nations...and the Queen obviously liked him. If I recall, they weren't the only ones.

[Craig1]

When you use words like, "might" and "could," it means you're talking about scenarios. In this case he wanted to ensure that Canada remains relevant as a world trading partner and that these things WOULD NOT happen.

OMG THAT IS SO EMBARRASSING.

If we're going to talk crack pots and credibility, you should maybe practice some critical thinking skills and learn the meaning of cogency. Look it up in the dictionary.

look in the dictionary its olny cogent If the premises are, in fact, true,. to say Iggy was conspiring is dumbfounded.

[Keepitsimple]

They were not technicalities they were out and out lies. It doesn't matter how you felt about them. They were nothing but lies. Constitutional scholars were do upset they even wrote a book about it.

Oh, and it's not about the size of the governing coalition, it's about the confidence of the house. As I said...lies.

OK....I can see that I won't be changing your opinion. Mine is such that I value what ordinary Canadians think when they cast their vote - rather than the opinion of so-called "constitutional experts". It's clear as the nose on your face that when people vote - they vote for a party. If the seat totals were close to each other, maybe the electorate would be open but for heavens sake - Conservatives 144, Liberals 77.