Harper is Evil

[August1991]

The Liberals are desperate on both sides of the Ottawa River. The CBC and Radio-Canada will be deployed as required.

Harper will hurt Kids

CBC and Harper's Secret Gestapo

CBC says Harper is Pro-Abortion

Harper will destroy the Environment

CBC says Harper has no interest in Canadian Arts

Harper wants to destroy Canadian culture

All of these tactics were used in similar fashion at various times by the Federal Liberals against the Parti Québécois. Wait for the big splash of media noise just before the vote.

It may well work. This Liberal crew are counting on the old line and the old methods.

[caesar]

Harper is too pro American/ Bush. For him to now deny that he supported the Invasion of Iraq is ludicrous. His ideas are all too pro American for me. I want Canada to remain independent from the USA as much as possible. Mulroney already tied us too closely to them for comfort. The NAFTA agreement is all tipped in favour of the USA. When the USA loses a ruling from NAFTA; they just ignore it like the recent softwood dispute that Canada won.

The present USA leadership believes that the USA is above international laws and agreements.

The torture of prisoners in Iraq and Cuba is against Geneva Conventions. There is evidence that approval of torture came from the White House. Note that Bush said the treatment of these prisoners comes within USA law not international law.

[Bionic Antboy]

The Liberals are desperate on both sides of the Ottawa River. The CBC and Radio-Canada will be deployed as required.

Harper will hurt Kids

CBC and Harper's Secret Gestapo

CBC says Harper is Pro-Abortion

Harper will destroy the Environment

CBC says Harper has no interest in Canadian Arts

Harper wants to destroy Canadian culture

All of these tactics were used in similar fashion at various times by the Federal Liberals against the Parti Québécois. Wait for the big splash of media noise just before the vote.

It may well work. This Liberal crew are counting on the old line and the old methods.

Just because there's a lot of negative press about the Conservatives doesn't mean it's wrong.

The party isn't clarifying it's stance on issues, keeping mum on social agendas and in general avoiding anything resembling open dialogue with Canadians.

This has been brought up before.

Why aren't they saying anything?

Evil may be to strong of a word, but they certainly are being shifty.

To imply that the Liberals are conducting some kind of smear campaign through the CBC smacks of a conspiracy theory.

Did you ever think that it's possible that the reason there's more questions being asked about Conservative policy has to do with their climb in the polls?

Don't you think the Greens would face similar questions if they had the level of popular support the Cons had?

Many Canadians are looking at the Cons because they're (rightly) angry with the corruption of the Liberals. After all, it always has been a Grits-Tory battle, and the new Conservative party has been labeled the Tories.

[willy]

When the USA loses a ruling from NAFTA; they just ignore it like the recent softwood dispute that Canada won.

Softwood is not covered under NFTA. This is one of the reasons we continue to have problems.

As for Bionic Antboy, they have been clear, and you choose to argue the opposite. Why, because you just don't like the Conservatives. Am I wrong.

[Argus]

Harper is too pro American/ Bush.

Pretend this is an essay question and you are required to expand upon it. So far all you have is he used to think we should have gone to Iraq with the Americans. But I'm sure, as an intelligent man, this isn't the entirety of your support for the above accusation. Please tell us in what other ways he's too close to the Americans, and how that is damaging to Canada. Also contrast that to how wonderful life would be here with a government which is distant and cold with the Americans, and how much influence such a government would have over trade issues (for example). You can use the Chretien government as a guide. Consider the contrary responses possible under the following two circumstances:

Brian Mulroney calls his very good friend Ron Reagan to complain about the border being closed to our cattle.

Jean Chretien calls George Bush - who can't stand him - to complain about the border being closed to our cattle.

[caesar]

Willy; Softwood lumber does come under NAFTA. Read some headlines once in a while. CBC: US trade panel defies NAFTA. rules Canadian lumber injures US producers

The USA thinks it can over rule NAFTA whenever the decision does not come down in their favour.

[Argus]

The party isn't clarifying it's stance on issues, keeping mum on social agendas and in general avoiding anything resembling open dialogue with Canadians.

An assertation of fact with nothing to back it up. What you seem to be implying is that after the reporters ask the same questions on the party's plans for abortion and same-sex marriage twenty nine hundred times, and get exactly the same response twenty nine hundred times Harper is somehow being unfair in not changing his answer to suit their desire for screaming headlines.

This has been brought up before.

Why aren't they saying anything?

Would you care to be more specific? Saying anything on what? If you mean abortion and same-sex marriage then I suspect what you really mean is "Why don't they stop saying it's up to individual MPs and admit they are monsters who want to murder and enslave every living human being and sell their brains to Martians?"

Or something similar.

To imply that the Liberals are conducting some kind of smear campaign through the CBC smacks of a conspiracy theory.

Right. It's not like the LIberals themselves and every reporter have said already that they are engaged in a fearmongering campaign. Oh wait, they have. Maybe you just didn't hear?

[Argus]

Willy;  Softwood lumber does come under NAFTA.  Read some headlines once in a while.  CBC:  US trade panel defies NAFTA. rules Canadian lumber injures US producers

The USA thinks it can over rule NAFTA whenever the decision does not come down in their favour.

The reality of the situation is that Bush has no intention of doing anything to harm his election chances this late in his term. Hardly surprising. Nor does he feel the slightest need, apparently, to help out Paul Martin in the late stages of his election campaign, a campaign which has had a lot of suggestions of anti-Americanism and anti-Bushisms about it.

[caesar]

He did not think; He screamed wwhined and yelled; we should be there with our American friends.

Why should we not develop a closer relationship with the most hated nation on earth, at this time. Why should we condone their aggressive arrogant actions and their vindictive trade retaliations. The USA does not abide my international agreements. Bush is like the little boy; who when he doesn't get his own way; takes the ball and does home.

Many of Harper's ideas are simply a mimic of the USA ways. I am quite satisfied to keep our country as separate from the USA as possible. We need to be in a position to disentangle our decisions and international relations from those of the USA. One should never put all their eggs in one basket. Bush and his vindictive ways may not be in power much longer; but he may not be the worst president that they will have in the future. To tie our defense and foreign decisions to the USA would be very dangerous. As with Bush; they could dictate our Canadian decisions without our votes or input.

I think relations with the USA should be friendly and cordial but never subservient nor controlled by USA decisions.

We need to seek more and varied trading partners that will respect Canada and trade in good faith.

By the way; rgus what made you think that I am a male.

Anyone with ties to Mulroney makes me very nervous and wary. He sold out a lot of Canada's independence and control of our resources to his American buddies; that was NOT in Canada's interest. He should crawl back under that rock he slithered back out of.

[Argus]

He did not think;  He screamed wwhined and yelled; we should be there with our American friends. 

You know that's not true. He might well have said we should be there, but let's stick to the truth, hmm? He did not scream or "whine", and everything I've seen or read of him indicates he's extremely intelligent. He simply made a different decision than you. That doesn't mean he "didn't think".

Why should we not develop a closer relationship with the most hated nation on earth, at this time.

The people who hate the US are generally ignorant rabble who know little about anything, religious fanatics, dull witted peasants without education, and vicious, brutal dictators. I grant you there are a lot of them, but I'd also suggest most of them would give their left nut to live in America rather than the shithole they're in now.

Why should we condone their aggressive arrogant actions and their vindictive trade retaliations.

Almost all major trading nations have preferential, often unfair, often illegal trade barriers. As for "agressive" I think most nations would be agressive after having the largest buildings in their largest city crash to the ground.

The USA does not abide my international agreements.

Usually it does. Occasionally it does not - which is basically the same as almost all nations, including Canada.

Many of Harper's ideas are simply a mimic of the USA ways.

I'd like to see something specific here.

We need to be in a position to disentangle our decisions and international relations from those of the USA.

This is meaningless twaddle.

  One should never put all their eggs in one basket.

Unless, of course, you only have one good large basket to put them in.

To tie our defense and foreign decisions to the USA would be very dangerous.  As with Bush; they could dictate our Canadian decisions without our votes or input.

Our defence and foreign decisions have been tied in with the US for sixty years. They've only really loosened in the last ten years, as our defence crumbled to pieces for lack of money and we became international whores, begging at the doors of any nation who would trade with us.

I don't consider either to be an improvement.

I think relations with the USA should be friendly and cordial but never subservient nor controlled by USA decisions.

That's the way they were under Mulroney. Now they are neither friendly nor cordial.

We need to seek more and varied trading partners that will respect Canada and trade in good faith.

We've been trying to do that for many years, to no success. Almost the whole of Europe is involved with the EEC and they have trade barriers to outsiders. The Japanese and Chinese and Koreans also have major trade barriers, and want nothing much from us but our raw materials. The rest of the world is generally too poor to pay for much. That leaves the US, like it or not. And BTW, we had a record $7.6 billion dollar trade surplus in April, most of that with the US.

By the way; Argus what made you think that I am a male.

Anyone with ties to Mulroney makes me very nervous and wary.  He sold out a lot of Canada's independence and control of our resources to his American buddies;

Please show how he sold out our independance and control of our resources. Oh I know there have been a lot of ravings about what the Americans might do with this or that, such as water. But ten or fifteen years on and none of that has really materialized. What NAFTA has done is protect us to some degree, from the mood of protectionism in the US. We would have been much worse off without it.

By the way, in case you forgot, you were supposed to expand upon just how Harper is too close to the Americans, not why you think Mulroney was. You failed to do so. You also failed to consider how a close relationship such as existed between Mulroney and Reagan might have eased the worst of the trade problems, such as those caused by and cow, that we have suffered.

I'm afraid that as a consequence you get a failing mark.

[takeanumber]

QUOTE 

Many of Harper's ideas are simply a mimic of the USA ways. 

I'd like to see something specific here.

Iraq.

Missile defence.

Immigration.

Reagonomic tax cuts.

Restricting a woman's right to choose.

Banning same sex marriage.

Need I go on?

[willy]

Willy; Softwood lumber does come under NAFTA. Read some headlines once in a while.

We did not enter into a long term trade aggreement with the US on softwood lumber when the original deal was signed. This is why we end up with 3 and 4 year contracts that have some form of duty. The US claims we subsidize the industry and under NAFTA they can put duties against our product (if they prove injury), which they would have done before NAFTA but we would not have a dispute resolving mechanism (which still does not work well).

Starting in the fall of 2001, the U.S. and Canadian governments held discussions to determine whether possible policy changes could lead to a durable resolution of the softwood lumber trade dispute. The B.C. government was engaged in these talks, along with the federal and other provincial governments.  These talks broke off on March 21, 2002.  Canada and the U.S. were unable to agree on the rate of the proposed transitional export tax, and issues related to provincial forest policy changes.  In addition, the U.S. did not accept Canada's proposal for binding dispute resolution by an independent third party.

Injury On May 16, 2001 the US International Trade Commission (ITC) made a preliminary determination that the US industry was injured as a result of alleged subsidies being provided to Canadian softwood lumber producers. This supported the continuation of legal proceedings of the countervailing duty investigation by the Department of Commerce (note that anti-dumping or countervailing duties can’t be imposed without a determination of injury or threat of injury, to the US domestic market). In the final determination on May 2, 2002, the ITC voted 4 to 0 that the United States softwood lumber industry was "threatened" with material injury by reason of imports of softwood lumber from Canada.

Subsidy In May 2001 the US Department of Commerce (DOC) undertook an investigation in response to the Coalition's petition. The period of investigation (POI) was April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001. On May 22, 2002 cash deposits began to be collected by the US Customs Service on Canadian softwood lumber imported into the US. The combined cash deposit rate was 27.22 % - a countervailing duty rate of 18.79% and anti dumping duty of 8.43%)

So yes, NAFTA is involved but we do not trade softwood freely based on the original agreement.

More information check this link.

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HET/Softwood/

Headlines don't offer context and sometimes they don't offer truth.

[Stoker]

I heard Harper is more machine then man.....twisted and Evil

Iraq.

Missile defence.

Immigration.

Reagonomic tax cuts.

Restricting a woman's right to choose.

Banning same sex marriage.

Iraq- martin hasn't ruled out going through NATO, and Jean may supported it had it been done through the UN......regardless, Jean never pulled our exchange troops out of American units.....couldn't have minded it that much......

Missile defence- Martin also agrees here.....perhaps it's you/your party that is not mainstream?

Immigration- Doesn't Harper also want to allow skilled immigrants regonition of past training when they move to Canada......much like the NDP?

Reagonomic tax cuts- Didn't Martin offer up close the same size cuts under Jean in 2000?

Restricting a woman's right to choose- Where did he say he would do that?

Banning same sex marriage- Where did he say he would do that?

I think in the case of both your examples, he said he would allow Parliment decide....

Perhaps it's you that is not mainstream......

[Argus]

QUOTE 

Many of Harper's ideas are simply a mimic of the USA ways. 

I'd like to see something specific here.

Iraq.

Missile defence.

Immigration.

Reagonomic tax cuts.

Restricting a woman's right to choose.

Banning same sex marriage.

Need I go on?

Many, many people agreed on Iraq. That does not mean they were "mimicing" the Americans. I agreed on Iraq because I have always been in favour of toppling brutal regimes wherever they are - on whatever pretext.

Missile defence? Have you heard Martin speaking against it? Does that make him a mimic of the US? And what do you know about Harper's immigration policy vs the immigration policy of the US? I see few similarities. Nor are all tax cuts to be laid at the doorstep of the Americans. Or do you think the very idea of a tax cut is some evil American scheme the world had never invented prior to Ronald Reagan's administraton? You really need to do better than this.

Harper is a fiscal conservative. That means many of his theories are going to be similar to those of fiscal conservatives elsewhere, be it the US, UK or Japan. He is moderately social conservative, like the majority of the people in this country, and I remind you that the entire world, so far as I know, frowns upon gay marriage. So you can as well compare him to the Italians or the Chinese on that topic as you can to the Americans.

You are darkly suspicious of the man simply because he has conservative leanings. And as the only conservatives in the world you seem to be aware of are the Americans - whom you seem to despise - you put two and two together and come up with seventeen. But Harper is not a Republican, though he no-doubt shares some of their professed ideals. Then again, he also shares some of the professed ideals of the Liberal Party. Does that mean he's mimicing them too?

Concentrate on his actual policies and leave off unsupported nonsense about how you distrust his apparent lack of hate for the Americans.

[Reverend Blair]

Harper did not speak out against the Liberal plan to allow Lockheed-Martin to conduct the Canadians census. Apparently neither he nor Martin cares about the privacy of the data of Canadians.

When Maher Arar was first illegally deported by the US, Harper backed the US over Arar. He did not take the time to learn the facts of the case, just assumed that Arar must be a terrorist, and thought that sending a Canadian citizen to a third country to be tortured was a good thing.

Harper is for supporting Missel Defense. So is Martin. Polls have shown that the majority of Canadians are against this initiative because it will lead to the weaponisation of space; is already leading to a new arms race; does not provide security against the real threats in the post-Cold War world; is massively expensive and would likely reduce available funding for our military; and, most of all, doesn't work.

The Conservative party blocked attempts by an all-party comission to impose a fine on US-owned meat-packing plants for contempt of parliament.

Stephen Harper's economic plans are the same kind of thing we've been seeing for over twenty years. In that time the Canadian standard of living has shrunken, as has the standard of living in the US, where the same basic policies have been used.

Stephen Harper is evil, since that's the terminology being used here. Not much more evil than Paul Martin perhaps, but evil is still evil. There are so many other choices in most ridings, I really have no idea why anybody would vote for either Martin or Harper. Most people do not own huge corporations after all.

[Argus]

Stephen Harper's economic plans are  the same kind of thing we've been seeing for over twenty years.  In that time the Canadian standard of living has shrunken, as has the standard of living in the US, where the same basic policies have been used.

And what do you suggest would be better? Something where the "rich", meaning the middle class, are taxed to high heaven to provide ever greater subsidies to those who do no work and produce nothing?

Stephen Harper is evil, since that's the terminology being used here.  Not much more evil than Paul Martin perhaps, but evil is still evil.  There are so many other choices in most ridings, I really have no idea why anybody would vote for either Martin or Harper.  Most people do not own huge corporations after all.

Most people are not as simplistic as this, perhaps? Most people don't want poorly thought-out, radical economic ideas which might destroy their economic lives? Most people disagree with you about what is good and bad?

[caesar]

We do not have more viable choices in our ridings. One of those two parties WILL be in power. We need to really start looking at our choices. Neither is really great for the ordinary citizen. Changing governing bodies for the sake of change without finding out the true nature of this other ruling party is an irrresponsible and dangerous thing to do. Look at us in BC. Always voting out the ruling party. Always finding something worse. Paying these outgoing politicians generous severence pay and pensions; Then we do the same for all their patronage appointees. Appointees, whose onlyuresume requirement is that the ruling party owes them a favour.

Harper seems to have no agenda other than to mimic and follow the American lead. This at a time that the USA has been headed down to trouble.

A liberal/ New Democrat coalition government would probably be our best choice. IMO

[Reverend Blair]

We do not have more viable choices in our ridings. One of those two parties WILL be in power.

This time around...and forever if we keep voting for them. If you want real change, then vote for it. We are most likely looking at a minority government this time around. That will give even a Green MP some power to sway the things are done.

Harper seems to have no agenda other than to mimic and follow the American lead. This at a time that the USA has been headed down to trouble.

Funny...I just wrote something expressing that same sentiment. I had Martin in about the same position as Harper though.

A liberal/ New Democrat coalition government would probably be our best choice. IMO

I agree. The NDP needs time to learn. A minority Liberal government would give them time to do that while balancing the neo-conservative tendencies of Paul Martin.

And what do you suggest would be better? Something where the "rich", meaning the middle class, are taxed to high heaven to provide ever greater subsidies to those who do no work and produce nothing?

I'm not sure what you're referring to there, Argus. I grew up in Saskatchewan and currently live in Manitoba. The NDP have proved themselves to be at least as fiscally responsible as the Conservatives time after time.

The federal NDP paltform calls for increasing the taxes on the rich, not the middle class, and giving tax relief to the poor, so obviously you aren't talking about them.

Most people are not as simplistic as this, perhaps? Most people don't want poorly thought-out, radical economic ideas which might destroy their economic lives?

Nothing simple about it at all. It is actually quite a complex issue. There is nothing radical about demanding good governance though, especially not within the bounds of protecting our sovereignty and nationhood.

right back atcha, Argus.

[willy]

The federal NDP paltform calls for increasing the taxes on the rich, not the middle class, and giving tax relief to the poor, so obviously you aren't talking about them.

100% capital gains tax will impact the middle class. It is hard enough to invest for retirement and they want to tax us everytime we move investments.

Watch the jobs dry up with investment. Jack the economy killer.

[idealisttotheend]

Watch the jobs dry up with investment. Jack the economy killer.

I find myself defending NDP/LIberal policies more and more and almost automatically attacking the Con's policy. THis was not what I wanted to do but I don't seems to be able to honestly do anything else. Oh well, at least I've learned to be brief.

Mr. Layton's tax hike is intended to go to childcare, health care and 'enviromentalization.'. To my knowledge, all those fields are intensive on the human labour side and could therefore either create jobs or push salaries up. People with more money buy more things. It's demand side vs. supply side economics but I think we could perhaps agree that tax policy is largely neutral job wise.

[willy]

hay, if we pay enough taxes we could all work for the government. Oh wait a minute for some reason that wont work.

[idealisttotheend]

Or we can pay no taxes and lay off more than 2.8 million people. Either extreme will fail, it's gotta be more in the middle. But we have to acknowledge that a little more or a little less will not be the end of the world.

[August1991]

Or we can pay no taxes and lay off more than 2.8 million people.

Why? What's the connection?

Either extreme will fail, it's gotta be more in the middle.

We should pay taxes and the government should hire people but not as a job-creation scheme.

But we have to acknowledge that a little more or a little less will not be the end of the world.

The change must be incremental. But when taxes represent about half of income and when government employees represent about 25% of the labour force, we've gone too far. This is the primary reason I tend to support the Tories.

[idealisttotheend]

QUOTE

Or we can pay no taxes and lay off more than 2.8 million people.

Why? What's the connection?

That's the number of public sector workers in 2001 according to Stats Can. Seems low but that's what they say.

Either extreme will fail, it's gotta be more in the middle.

We should pay taxes and the government should hire people but not as a job-creation scheme.

I completely agree and didn't mean to suggest otherwise, I meant only to suggest that taxes do pay for the people government's do hire.

But when taxes represent about half of income and when government employees represent about 25% of the labour force, we've gone too far.

This bothered me at first too. But when you consider that the feds paid 36 Billion (20%) of our taxes as interest charges (an expense some buisnesses have as well I know), 29 Billion (16%) in transfers to the provinces and 58 billion (32%) in "Social services" on a budget of 183B it's not that cut and dried. I mean a lot of government expenses are direct transfers of funds to people (say Welfare, Veteran's benefits and such) that aren't considered considered employees. In fact a true number would have to include all these people as being "employed" by the government for it to be possible to compare the two.

Stats can federal budget summary last 5 years

[Reverend Blair]

But when you consider that the feds paid 36 Billion (20%) of our taxes as interest charges (an expense some buisnesses have as well I know), 29 Billion (16%) in transfers to the provinces and 58 billion (32%) in "Social services" on a budget of 183B it's not that cut and dried. I mean a lot of government expenses are direct transfers of funds to people (say Welfare, Veteran's benefits and such) that aren't considered considered employees. In fact a true number would have to include all these people as being "employed" by the government for it to be possible to compare the two.

Kind of makes you wonder what the Harper cuts will come out of.