Martin vs. Harper - Good vs. Evil

[August1991]

First off, Canada was founded by Protestants,

That's false. Canada was at its inception Catholic and it remains a country dominated by Catholic belief.

It should not be socially acceptable because it is not socially natural, man was not made for man, woman was not made for woman.

How do you define "socially acceptable"?

Once we allow homosexuals what is stopping child-molesting or poligamy from being 'ok'?

Do you mean that if I drink water, it's inevitable that I'll become an alcoholic?

Funny isn't it how every democracy was founded under religion and yet you say it has no place in our culture, think that one through before defending it.

Do you really mean that it is impossible to have democracy without religion? Whare was democracy first used to guide the affairs of State? What role did religion play?

[Hawk]

Why? Because what we did to the States was literally a backstabbing, we are close neighbours and allies NOT enemies. We share a border, we must stick together through hard times not bicker and fight.

When Canada refused to join the US in this Iraq war, we were not backstabbing anyone. Would you say the US backstabbed us when it chose not to join us in 1939? Governments in different countries choose as they wish to do what they want. Canada and the US and France are all democracies. The governments chose in democratic fashion. Respect that choice.

Oh really? We didn't backstab them? We didn't cry out against them, we didn't make ourselves out to be 'the good guys of North America' and the USA 'the evil tyrant-led fascist invaders'? Think again, if we simply disagreed and didn't attack the USA politically I would agree with you, because you see in 1939 we went to war more because Britain was at war and we had yet to gain our complete sovereignty than because we chose to. The states however did not go after Canada's blood for joining the war did they? Now if you want to say 'the situation was different etc etc etc' then maybe you shouldn't have brought it up to support your argument hmm?

[Hawk]

First off, Canada was founded by Protestants,

That's false. Canada was at its inception Catholic and it remains a country dominated by Catholic belief.

And guess what, the French got the crap kicked out of them by the Protestants. Who then ran the country

It should not be socially acceptable because it is not socially natural, man was not made for man, woman was not made for woman.

How do you define "socially acceptable"?

I defined it right there, if you can't read dont complain to me. Simply use your logic and read =)

Once we allow homosexuals what is stopping child-molesting or poligamy from being 'ok'?

Do you mean that if I drink water, it's inevitable that I'll become an alcoholic?

So now your arguing in riddles? If you want to dance around a topic I can play that game too, please state your point

Funny isn't it how every democracy was founded under religion and yet you say it has no place in our culture, think that one through before defending it.

Do you really mean that it is impossible to have democracy without religion? Whare was democracy first used to guide the affairs of State? What role did religion play?

Fundamental principle: Without a beginning there can be no end

Therefore if we were founded with religion then how can you tell me that religion has no place in politics? If those great founding fathers created these great democratic nations based on religious values the only thing confusing is why you would want to strip away those values. Do you honestly want to destroy your culture? The values that made this country great, the values that kept us alive this long, the values that held us from anarchy and extremists, and you want to remove them. Maybe you should re-examine your beliefs if you are willing to cause such damage simply to attack the basis of our nation

[idealisttotheend]

"I think a friend does not mean you kneel in front of him" Gilles Duceepe, English Debate 2004

I was going to change my signature to this but didn't on reflection, too bad I can't vote for Mr. Duceepe he is a wise man. The above saying sums up how Canada's relationship with the US ought to be perfectly.

We did nothing to harm the US by not going to Iraq or by rightly critisizing their position. History will show Mr. Bush's problem with Mr. Hussien was personal and unless Mr. Bush invades a lot of other countries he cannot sustain his argument that he did it for the greater good of human kind. Mr. Harper is very wrong to argue that we should have gone to Iraq blindly. Mr. Harper argues against the wisdom of the majority of the electorate and for no good reason, something that does not speak well of his chances at a long political career.

I think it is Mr. Harper whose faith is blind in this case not RBs or anyone else who argues that it is okay to criticize the US and gets called a 'socialist' for it.

[August1991]

because you see in 1939 we went to war more because Britain was at war and we had yet to gain our complete sovereignty than because we chose to. The states however did not go after Canada's blood for joining the war did they? Now if you want to say 'the situation was different etc etc etc' then maybe you shouldn't have brought it up to support your argument hmm?

In 1939, the Canadian government chose togo to war; the US government did not. There were people on both sides of the border that variously criticized these decisions, sometimes heatedly.

The same occurred recently in the case of the Iraq war. Since these stakes are smaller (than in 1939), the debate was less heated and will likely be forgotten sooner.

Most important, all these decisions were taken in democratic fashion.

Lastly, the situation is obviously different but the principle is the same. I think the Canadian government has chosen to fight when the stakes really matter. We avoid less serious battles. Can the US government say the same?

[August1991]

And guess what, the French got the crap kicked out of them by the Protestants. Who then ran the country

What religion have Canada's PMs been in this century (both English and French)? Why do people send their kids to immersion? Why does anyone still speak French on this continent? "Got the crap kicked out"??? What planet are you living on?

So now your arguing in riddles? If you want to dance around a topic I can play that game too, please state your point

You imply that if someone is gay, then they'll eventually be a child molester. I used the water to Scotch analogy. Maybe I should have pointed out that most child molesters seem to be heterosexuals.

I defined it right there, if you can't read dont complain to me. Simply use your logic and read =)

I still don't what you mean by "socially acceptable" and "socially natural".

If those great founding fathers created these great democratic nations based on religious values the only thing confusing is why you would want to strip away those values.

To my knowledge, one of the first States to experiment with democracy was Athens, around 450 BC. I don't believe religion had much to do with it.

India is a functioning democracy and religion, much less Christianity or Protestantism, has a small role to play.

IMV, there is no obvious connection between democracy and religion.

The values that made this country great, the values that kept us alive this long, the values that held us from anarchy and extremists, and you want to remove them.

What values are you referring to? Are they religious values or political values?

[Sully]

Caesar, please, we know you disagree with Harper and Campbell and think the two are of the same ilk. But for the sake of the rest of us, just start your own thread where you write a huge long speech about your love for the two of them. Then just tell us to refer to that post as you time and time again spew the exact same old rhetoric.

You know the story about :

Your families experience with health care here in BC, where many other families have experienced it also, don't worry you are not alone. Try to understand that regardless of what provinicial party is in place wait lines are increasing, NDP provinces have the same problem too, they just waste more money for the same results.

The comparison of tax cuts between Harper/Campbell, where there are striking differences

Health Care Privitization, the way it has gone under the Liberals

Harper taking Canada and the troops we don't have into Iraq!! Weird even during the gulf war of the early 90's we did not have the troops to send, yet after years of underfunding from the Fed Libs we have enough to send to Iraq in 2003, weird I thought Afghanistan was stretching us thin.

I think you get the point and so do we, you go into this rant regardless of the topic of discussion!!!!

[Hawk]

In 1939, the Canadian government chose togo to war; the US government did not.  There were people on both sides of the border that variously criticized these decisions, sometimes heatedly.

Of course, but as I said, we were 'Britain's' children, we were defending the homeland! =p

The same occurred recently in the case of the Iraq war.  Since these stakes are smaller (than in 1939), the debate was less heated and will likely be forgotten sooner.

See this is what irkes me... hindsight is 20/20, and Liberals have a double standard that disgusts me.

First off, if Bush hadn't acted on the intelligence and it had turned out Saddam DID have WMD (which he still may have for all we know) and he used them I can just see the headlines 'BUSH ADMINISTRATION WARNED OF IMPENDING THREAT AND FAILED TO ACT'

Whereas in this situation he DID act, the WMD have not yet been found (and they may or may not ever be found) and headlines are decarling 'BUSH ADMINISTRATION UNJUSTLY INVADES IRAQ' and so on.

It is rather dissapointing that Libs can't understand such simple concepts but in my opinion they are too simple-minded to comprehend human error unless the one making the error is a Lib too =p

Most important, all these decisions were taken in democratic fashion.

Democratic? I dont recall a vote on 1939, I do recall a government declaring war on a 'terrorist' leader bent on the extermination of Israelites (Jews) however. My oh my, I also recall plenty of appeasement offered to start the whole thing off, all to please the left-wing and 'try to find a peaceful solution, give him what he wants'.

The League of Nations failed in WW2 and the UN will fail as well, I dont trust them as far as I can throw em (and I can't throw them very far). Any organization that puts one of the leading human rights abusive nation in charge of the Human Rights department is NOT to be trusted with international security.

Lastly, the situation is obviously different but the principle is the same.  I think the Canadian government has chosen to fight when the stakes really matter.  We avoid less serious battles.  Can the US government say the same?

Avoiding your problems until they become a crisis is a very foolish plan, think about how many people could have been saved if the League of Nations had stepped in and stopped Germany instead of appeasing them?

Not to mention I doubt the Canadian military could even support a single tour of duty in Iraq if they wanted to, another problem with having a Liberal government in power. The shame of what was once considered the best (if not then one of the best) fighting forces on earth.

[Hawk]

And guess what, the French got the crap kicked out of them by the Protestants. Who then ran the country

What religion have Canada's PMs been in this century (both English and French)? Why do people send their kids to immersion? Why does anyone still speak French on this continent? "Got the crap kicked out"??? What planet are you living on?

Yes, the French settled Canada, then the English came in and took over. Read up on your Canadian history, you can thank us for allowing you to keep your culture too. In regards to the Prime Minister's religions, the reason they are 'catholic' (funny even though the Pope didn't like Jean Chretien one bit) is because if they were 'Christian' they would recieve no votes because Christians are majorly discriminated against.

When you say people enter immersion you forget that you live in your little world of Montreal, the rest of us (yes around 80% of Canada) however are mainly English. I personally dont know more than 2 words of French, and I am proud. Personally I dont believe we in the West should be forced to learn French and speak French while in Quebec they aren't forced to learn English. But that is my personal opinion, not relevant to this argument.

So now your arguing in riddles? If you want to dance around a topic I can play that game too, please state your point

You imply that if someone is gay, then they'll eventually be a child molester. I used the water to Scotch analogy. Maybe I should have pointed out that most child molesters seem to be heterosexuals.

WHAT??? First off WHERE did you get that? Read my post again please, because I was CLEARLY stating that with the mentality that you use to justify homosexuality that almost anything could be justified.

I defined it right there, if you can't read dont complain to me. Simply use your logic and read =)

I still don't what you mean by "socially acceptable" and "socially natural".

Then perhaps you shouldn't be arguing on the topic

If those great founding fathers created these great democratic nations based on religious values the only thing confusing is why you would want to strip away those values.

To my knowledge, one of the first States to experiment with democracy was Athens, around 450 BC. I don't believe religion had much to do with it.

India is a functioning democracy and religion, much less Christianity or Protestantism, has a small role to play.

IMV, there is no obvious connection between democracy and religion.

Athens, remember those ancient gods people are so interested in? Yeah, from the same time period, read your history more carefully please.

and India.. Are you seriously going to use that? Your talking about a ME state my friend, and that means Islam. Is Islam not a religion?

The values that made this country great, the values that kept us alive this long, the values that held us from anarchy and extremists, and you want to remove them.

What values are you referring to? Are they religious values or political values?

Read the ten commandments and get back to me

[playfullfellow]

http://www.kurdish-partnership.com/history.html

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/...Khaledtext.html

Caesar, check out these sites please. Denial of Kurdish genocide is unfair to them. There is more apparant evidence supporting the Iraqi chemical attacks than the attacks coming from some other source. Genocide in any form is unacceptable. Just as you accuse me off, you only pick and chose the articles that show your point of view. I entered this discussion thinking maybe I was wrong when I read your statements in reference to the war college. But you know, the more I read and researched, the more information I found that chemical attacks by the Iraqi regime against the Kurds did in fact happen. These were just not just Kurdish sites but in fact sites from all over Europe from European authors. I specifically avoided US sites as you claimed them to be tainted.

The US is also our ally and we as a nation have a signed agreement with them to this cause. We also have the largest undefended border in the world. If nothing else, we should have given the US moral support in their battle against Sadam. I may not entirly agree with the US position in regards to Irag. This does not however say we let our alliance to the US slide.

As for finding new trading partners, this is not specifically the job of the PM, this is the job of individual companies or groups with the blessing of the Government. Ottawa can only hope to help in trade barrier negotiations with countries. At the moment, there really aren't any countries with real money that Canada does not trade with. The only real commodity that the Governement controls in trade is wheat and barley as this is controled by the Wheat Board. Some of our natural resources are also used in trade negotiations at the government level.

[Stoker]

What religion have Canada's PMs been in this century (both English and French)? Why do people send their kids to immersion? Why does anyone still speak French on this continent? "Got the crap kicked out"??? What planet are you living on?

Who is our Head of State?

See this is what irkes me... hindsight is 20/20, and Liberals have a double standard that disgusts me.

First off, if Bush hadn't acted on the intelligence and it had turned out Saddam DID have WMD (which he still may have for all we know) and he used them I can just see the headlines 'BUSH ADMINISTRATION WARNED OF IMPENDING THREAT AND FAILED TO ACT'

Whereas in this situation he DID act, the WMD have not yet been found (and they may or may not ever be found) and headlines are decarling 'BUSH ADMINISTRATION UNJUSTLY INVADES IRAQ' and so on.

It is rather dissapointing that Libs can't understand such simple concepts but in my opinion they are too simple-minded to comprehend human error unless the one making the error is a Lib too =p

Thats a good point, Bush was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't........I tend to believe that though it may not be always the best solution, doing the right thing, even if it's for the wrong reasons, can still be justified because you are still doing the right thing.....But I've yet to be convinced that Bush went into Iraq for even the wrong reasons.....

[caesar]

Bush had no business invading Iraq; He KNEW his information he was using was fraudulent; The real work of eliminating the terrorists and capturing bin Laden were tossed aside. Why did they abandon the work in Afghanistan? Canada had every right to refuse to join in an ill advised invasion of a country that was still cooperating with the UN. Bush had absolutely no business trying to strong arm our country to follow his lead. That is not the DEMOCRATIC way; thea is the acts of a dictator.

Invading a country while it is cooperating and allowing UN inspectors to do their work did nothing to eliminate terrorism. It had the exact opposite affect. Angering Muslims and Arabs because of this unjustified attack. The action has only made more young Muslims and Arabs see tehmselves as being targeted by the USA and win them over to the side of the terrorists.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans are now realizing that Bush's actions have not had a beneficial affect for their country.

You do not follow "friends" into stupid actions. If your friend will not listen and decides to drive drunk; would you do the same?

But you did see those headlines; now soon forgotten. Bush did have warnings of an impending threat before the World Trade Center was destroyed; and did nothing.

You cannot attack other be it a person or a country because they MIGHT be a threat. If you do, and are wrong; as Bush was; you must face the consequences of your actions.

If you allow torture of prisoners against geneva convention; you must face the consequences of your actions. I hope that you noticed that Bush said the interrogation of prisoners was done with USA Laws not Geneva convention approved. The USA is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. They scream loud and clear when others step over the line.

[Stoker]

Bush had no business invading Iraq; He KNEW his information he was using was fraudulent;

Can you prove that?

Why did they abandon the work in Afghanistan?

IIRC, they have over 15k troops still there, possably closer to 20K........

Canada had every right to refuse to join in an ill advised invasion of a country that was still cooperating with the UN

If Saddam had of told the UN where and what proof he had of destroying his WMDs......He would still be in one of his Palaces......

You cannot attack other be it a person or a country because they MIGHT be a threat. If you do, and are wrong; as Bush was; you must face the consequences of your actions.

If you are walking down the street and a crook rasies a baseball bat towards you, are you not going to try and take action to defend yourself?Or will you let him hit you with a bat?

[playfullfellow]

But you did see those headlines; now soon forgotten. Bush did have warnings of an impending threat before the World Trade Center was destroyed; and did nothing.

Yep, saw the headlines and you wonder why he went after Hussein? Didn't want to get caught in the same bloody mess as with the WTC. As was stated by others, he is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

You do not follow "friends" into stupid actions. If your friend will not listen and decides to drive drunk; would you do the same?

Hope you are a good enough friend to support him when he screws up. Plus you dont turn your back on a friend if he gets in that car, you try to ensure he gets home safely.

You cannot attack other be it a person or a country because they MIGHT be a threat. If you do, and are wrong; as Bush was; you must face the consequences of your actions.

As you stated above, Bush screwed up when had info about the WTC and did nothing about it. What was he supposed to do? In my mind, he was doing what you are suggesting, nothing, where did it get him, in a whole lotta crap.

If you allow torture of prisoners against geneva convention; you must face the consequences of your actions. I hope that you noticed that Bush said the interrogation of prisoners was done with USA Laws not Geneva convention approved. The USA is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions. They scream loud and clear when others step over the line.

I do not and never have agreed with this sort of torture. Nor do I condone beheadings of US nationals for the world to see. Torture of this kind is ignoramic and stupid.

[caesar]

Bush was arrogant and wrong. He was a arrogant bully. We did try to stop him; so did many other nations. I saw the letters from Veteran Professional Agents for Sanity (former CIA and FBI agents) informing and warning him he was acting on bad intelligence PRIOR to the invasion. The UN proved to Bush and Co that the information they presented to the UN was fraudulent.

There are no excuses for Bush's actions. He is responsible for the death of Iraqi civillians, American soldiers and British soldiers. He has brought the terrorists into Iraq.

Harper did not represent Canada; He had no right to go to the USA and to apologize for Canadians. Canadians were NOT wrong; The USA administration WAS wrong.

No More Excuses.

[caesar]

Sully; Everytime you Harperites try to change the subject regarding the danger that Harper will destroy our medical system; I will reply. When you approve of Harper going to Bush; hat in hand, apologizing for Canada not joining the Iraq invasion; I will remind you Canada did the Right thing. When Harper makes libelous remarks such as the Liberals and NDP being in support of child porn; I will remind you that we do not need a Prime Minister who cannot THINK before he speaks.

Canada has been bilingual from the start; to suggest that being changed will only create more tensions and divisions in Canada.

My posts are nowhere near as long as your fellow Harperite buddies posts nor as frequent.

[playfullfellow]

Canada has been bilingual from the start; to suggest that being changed will only create more tensions and divisions in Canada.

Caesar, do you know the cost of Bilingualism to Canada as tax payers and business owners since 1969 is? The cost has been around 700 billion dollars. Our annual cost now is around 16 billion dollars as tax payers and business owners. Can you imagine what that 16 billion dollars in saved taxes and increased revenue could do for Canada?

Sully; Everytime you Harperites try to change the subject regarding the danger that Harper will destroy our medical system; I will reply.

Ok, you seem to think that Harper will destroy our healthcare system by wanting to make changes to it. Does the system work now? In my opinion it does not. European countries have tried strictly public healthcare systems and they do not work. Most European countries have moved to some sort of private clinic system along side the public system. So right now, how do you propose we fix the healthcare system? You say Harpers way will destroy it but it is obvious the current system does not work, how do we fix the problem. Lets hear solutions instead of "harper's evil and bad, he will destroy canada."

[Hawk]

Well said playfullfellow and Stoker. Oh, and ceasar while your at it please do address some of my rebuttals, it is rather tiring to have to read your common rants and spend the time responding to them only to have you repeat your rants again all the while refusing to address my post.

Thanks =)

PS

Add this to the list of rebuttals:

Harper did not represent Canada; He had no right to go to the USA and to apologize for Canadians. Canadians were NOT wrong; The USA administration WAS wrong.

No More Excuses.

Am I not Canadian, are the right-wing Canadians not Canadians? You are yet again doing the whole Liberal 'I am enlightened and you are savages' thing which makes me laugh when I read it, if I didn't see it everday I wouldn't believe it possible such narrow minds could exist.

Harper represented the right-wing, he had every right to go and apologise for our betrayal (refer to previous posts for my supporting arguments regarding our betrayal). Its a pity our Prime Minister allowed personal differences to get in the way and used this whole thing as a political edge.

In regards to your OPINION that the Bush administration was wrong again it is noted, but not confirmed. WMD could be discovered any day, refusing to admit to such is blatant self-indulged ignorance

[August1991]

Oh, and ceasar while your at it please do address some of my rebuttals, it is rather tiring to have to read your common rants and spend the time responding to them only to have you repeat your rants again all the while refusing to address my post.

I feel the same way, Hawk.

This thread is all over the map. We've got the Iraq war in general and Canada's participation. Health care. Gay marriage.

Would someone please start separate threads?

[moon]

Bush only did the wrong thing in your opinion. he actually did the right thing in many peoples opinion including mine. Harper went and apologized for the Canadians that were appaulled by the fact that we did nothing to support out allies in Iraq and fight in a war to bring down a horrible monster.

He went in and took away power from a mass murder who had no concern for human life other then his own.

You really think that given the opportunity Saddam wouldn't attack the US in some manner, whether it be a direct attack, a terrorist attack or any other manner?

[Argus]

Bush was arrogant and wrong.  He was a arrogant bully.

Isn't a "bully" someone who picks on harmless, innocent people?

I don't recall ever hearing about someone who kicks the shit out of a thieving crackhead pimp, rapist and murderer on the corner as being described as a "bully".

I don't know about you, but if I had a thieving crackhead pimp, rapist and murderer on my block I wouldn't be all that upset if someone came along and caved his head in.

It sounds to me that you, rather than being grateful, would be outraged that proper processes weren't followed, permissions sought, and legislation observed, and would be all for punishing the "bully" and helping out the poor, helpless thieving crackhead pimp, rapist and murderer so he could carry on with his *business*.

[Argus]

Ok, you seem to think that Harper will destroy our healthcare system by wanting to make changes to it. Does the system work now? In my opinion it does not. European countries have tried strictly public healthcare systems and they do not work. Most European countries have moved to some sort of private clinic system along side the public system.

Just a slight correction. ALL European countries have a mix of public and private health care.

In fact, all western nations have a mix of public and private health care.

In fact, aside from North Korea and Cuba, ALL nations on the planet have a mix of public and private health care.

Canada, Cuba, and North Korea; the only three nations which ban private, for profit health care.

[Argus]

Sully; Everytime you Harperites try to change the subject regarding the danger that Harper will destroy our medical system; I will reply.

Why do you people continue to buy this "big lie"? Remember the "Sacred Trust? That was how the Liberals termed their scare campaign against the Reform Party in 1993. "Vote for us so we can protect social services from the evil Reform Party!!" they moaned.

Of course, then they got in and proceeded to slash social spending left and right, taking tens of billions out of transfer payments for health, education and welfare.

Next election, it was Martin leading the way "Vote for me and I'll protect your health care from the evil Alliance!"

And he got in, and watched health care teeter on the verge of collapse, uncaring, smiling happily as he eyed the poll numbers, socking money away with accounting tricks, or diverting it to his friends and buddies and campaign contributors.

And here we are again. And what are the Liberals saying? "Vote for me and we'll protect health care from the evil Conservatives!!"

Don't you ever get tired of being laughed at and lied to? Clearly the Liberals don't give a damn about health care and social services. They care about THEMSELVES and nothing more. Maybe Harper's tinkering will make the health care system worse, but I'm sure that's not his intent. And maybe his tinkering will make it better? You ever think of that? At least the guy wants to try something new. I don't think we'll get anything from the Liberals but four more years of sleepwalking to oblivion, as the health care system continues to deteriorate and the boomers continue to age and require more and more expensive health care treatment.

[playfullfellow]

I stand corrected Argus, I wasn't sure if all were a mixture of the 2 systems or not. I am more familiar with Northern Europe and I know this to be fact there and it seems to work quite well. Thanks again.

[caesar]

I am getting a little tired of the baby boomers aging and overloading the system nonsense. The younger people today go running to the doctor every time they sneeze. I am 62; In the last 20 years; I have probably gone to the doctor 3 times and then walked out once for being ignored and left to rot. Prescriptions; last one was around 1980. Most of you younger ones have probably visited a doctor more in the last year than I have in 20 years.

The politicians are not the problem with Health Care; we are. Running to the doctor for nothing.