Harper is Evil

[caesar]

Argus; Many people agreed on Iraq; Many people were wrong. Most Canadian were against the invasion of Iraq outside of a UN mandate. The UN was still being allowed to do their job in Iraq; seeking any WMD. They did not find any as most had been previously destroyed.

The job of ridding Afghanistan had not been completed. Not finishing that job has allowed terrorism to spread to more places where it will be more difficult to contain.

When Bush sought votes at the UN by bribing countries with cash and/or weapons and threatening other (Like

Canada) with economic sanctions; it lost all credibility in my eyes. If you have a valid claim; seek votes by showing and stating facts; resorting to bribery and blackmail is not the civillized route. Then we found out that much of the information that the USA/Britain presented to the UN was false, forgeries, and even a 10 year old college report.

Pakistan's top scientist were discovered to be selling nuclear technologies and parts to rogue nations on the USA's most wanted list. Nary a ripple as Pakistan forgave the scientist and even allowed him to keep his ill gotten gains. In fact, the USA then made Pakistan a favoured nation enabling it to buy the newer technologie and weapons from the USA.

[Reverend Blair]

Not to mention the Bush administration embracing regimes like that of Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. While invading Iraq to free it of Saddam (a US-created monster) the Bush administration is creating other Saddams.

[Argus]

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?

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.

The NDP is full of vague generalities on just how they should readjust taxes. But I do know this much: They have often talked about the rich as "the upper tier, ie, the top fifth, of wage earners" That upper fifth is not neccesarily rich at all. You need only be making over $48k per year if you are single and without dependants to be in the upper tier. Or just over $100k family income for a family of four. That is not rich by any means. And as a member of this group I hold no trust in the NDP. And frankly, the fact they are eliminating taxes for anyone earning $15k does not hold right with me. People in the lowest category already pay little in taxes. If the NDP are going to say that they should pay NOTHING towards the upkeep of the government then why should they be allowed to vote on how MY money is to be spent?

[Argus]

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.

I have to agree. Let's look at say, me, and say, my brother. My brother spends his money on a nice car, on trips down south, on smoking and drinking. I put my extra money into mutual funds. This is money which has already been taxed, remember, off my paycheque, and then with income tax at the end of the year. This is what I have left, and I spend wisely and put it into investments so I won't have to rely on the government in my old age. And Layton wants to increase the taxes on what profits I get back? What he's encouraging me to do is to just spend the damned money.

[Reverend Blair]

Layton haas clearly stated that "rich" is somebody who makes over $250,000/year. The inheritance tax is for people inheriting more than a million. Those aren't exactly middle class numbers and they are not "vague generalities."

[Argus]

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

No, not really. There is a lot of fat in the budget, and has been for years. Martin has been desperately squirelling it away every year trying to hide how big the surpluses really are. Hell, that's why we've got something like $10 billion already stuffed into those so-called "foundations" of his.

Then you've got poorly run outfits like DND, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, External Affairs, HRDC, Heritage, and others, which have been bleeding money on idiotic, wasteful projects for decades, and, the last time I looked, something like $17b a year into those porkbarrel "economic development" agencies, much of which goes in corporate welfare to Liberal friends, and to porkbarrel politics, like building roads to nowhere and sponsoring studies into wildflowers.

In addition, one of the major savings the Tories are touting is keeping the overall increase in budget spending to the rate of inflation, or about 3%. The Liberals made the same promise some years back, but failed to keep it. Their spending has been rising at about 6-7% annually. Now a 3% increase amounts to about $4.5 Billion so if the Tories can keep spending increases to the rate of inflation that alone will save almost half the amount needed for the tax cuts.

And if you look at the numbers, the amount of the tax cut is not that big as a proportion of the overall program budget. The Tory tax cut of $50b is over FIVE years, remember.

[Argus]

Argus;  Many people agreed on Iraq;  Many people were wrong.  Most Canadian were against the invasion of Iraq outside of a UN mandate.  The UN was still being allowed to do their job in Iraq; seeking any WMD.  They did not find any as most had been previously destroyed.

I do not consider the UN, which is largely a collection of brutal murdering thugs, to be an arbiter of morality and justice. As an example, are you aware the UN Human Rights Agency recently criticised Canada for its handling of refugees? Like we're too hard on refugees! The UNHRC members are some of the most brutal thugs on Earth, including Sudan, and the chair - Libya.

Ridding the world of this kind is not, to my mind immoral or unjustic or criminal. And I don't care what a bunch of damned lawyers think.

The job of ridding Afghanistan had not been completed.  Not finishing that job has allowed terrorism to spread to more places where it will be more difficult to contain.

The problem is that world terrorism is not centred in Afghanistan, it's centred in Saudi Arabia, and supported economically from there. I think one of the unspoken reasons the US went for Iraq was that if they had a friendly government there they could afford to put a lot more pressure on the Saudi government.

When Bush sought votes at the UN by bribing countries with cash and/or weapons and threatening other (Like

Canada) with economic sanctions;  it lost all credibility in my eyes.  If you have a valid claim; seek votes by showing and stating facts; resorting to bribery and blackmail is not the civillized route.

Unless you're dealing with liars and thieves and murderers, of course, where truth and justice carry no particular weight.

[caesar]

Argus; You do not arm liars and thieves: AMERICA'S BRIBES TO THESE COUNTRIES INCLUDED CASH AND ARMS.. Saudi Arabia is the USA's friend. Many of the terrorists were of Saudi origin; they want American to get their military base out of Saudi Arabia. That is the other reason for invading Iraq; a spot for a strategic military base for the USA. Canada was on the end of those threats and has paid a price in worsened trade relations with the USA for not blindly supporting and following them into Iraq. Are we one of those murderers or thieves Hmmm

The terrorists were centered in Afghanistan and Pakistan; including training camps. Remember Osama bin laden; their leader; still there as far as most information suggests.

I would expect my country to negotiate in a manner that meets with our ethics not sink to the level of less ethical governments. I can see how you would support Harper,

[August1991]

More evidence of the now desperate Liberal desire for power.

Harper is evil risk to Trudeau's Canada

[caesar]

Not desperate; just telling it like it is. We do need a strong central government. We need to curtail some provincial powers. I would prefer one strong country to deal with the world. Good article

[Bionic Antboy]

Not desperate; just telling it like it is. We do need a strong central government. We need to curtail some provincial powers. I would prefer one strong country to deal with the world. Good article

It's obvious that the article IS leaning a bit towards fear mongering, but I do agree with it in spirit.

If the federal gov't is crippled by handing more ppwer to the provinces, the relatively small role Canada plays in world trade would just be further diminished.

I agree with you entirely that we need one strong national voice on the world stage.