Why do people hate Harper?

[Argus]

I will give Harper credit for being pragmatic. He's such a narcissist (see: Harper replacing pictures in Parliament to self-portraits) and megalomaniac that he will do anything to stay in power.

I thank you for being the first to demonstrate that bug-eyed horror so many on the Left have of Harper. A megalomaniac, yet? Do you even know what that is or is it just a pejorative term you can use to conjure up images of an evil overlord hiding in your bedroom closet.

[Wayward Son]

I have managed to dislike governments consisting of every major party. My first reason for dislike has to do with stances and actions that are taken which are anti-science. The second reason has to do with unethical behavior. Both reasons are amplified when party supporters defend their party for purely ideological reasons. The current federal government has displayed more then its share of anti-science and unethical behavior.

Beyond the political party in question, I dislike Harper as a leader for additional reasons: had he been in power he would have engaged us in Iraq and deregulated the banks both of which would have left us in a far worse position come the financial collapse. He receives a lot credit for Canada not suffering us much as most countries did with the collapse even though a) that credit belongs elsewhere and his stance on things like the Iraq war and bank regulation would have sank us.

[kward]

Or I voted for him then. But whatever.

Of course, I was voting for their platform of accountability and transparency. Now the PBO has to take them to court to get the information to do his job. A job the Conservatives created. Needless to say, they let me down and the mindless cheerleading for the Conservatives from conservatives in this country makes me sick. They should be holding their party accountable. Instead, they're just happy to be "winning." Meanwhile, we're all losing.

You missed my point...which is...it doesn't matter which party you vote for of the major parties...the difference between them appears vast but that's by design.

Being "sick" of cheerleading is an emotional reaction to a game that's been rigged from the start.

We're all losing? We've been losing for as long as we've been lazy...and that's a long, long time.

[kward]

I definitely have not seen anything resembling the frothing hate that Obama inspires in the US. What I do find unique is the victim/persecution complex among Conservative supporters, at a time when almost every media outlet has openly endorsed the Conservatives in election after election.

There's probably many media "outlets" who support the Liberals, ones who support the NDP, ones who support the Greens, etc. But it doesn't mean anything.

[kward]

I have managed to dislike governments consisting of every major party. My first reason for dislike has to do with stances and actions that are taken which are anti-science. The second reason has to do with unethical behavior. Both reasons are amplified when party supporters defend their party for purely ideological reasons. The current federal government has displayed more then its share of anti-science and unethical behavior.

Beyond the political party in question, I dislike Harper as a leader for additional reasons: had he been in power he would have engaged us in Iraq and deregulated the banks both of which would have left us in a far worse position come the financial collapse. He receives a lot credit for Canada not suffering us much as most countries did with the collapse even though a) that credit belongs elsewhere and his stance on things like the Iraq war and bank regulation would have sank us.

It wouldn't matter which major federal party was in charge, the laundry list of complaints would remain, just with different items, and the complaints would come from the herd who live in the blue pen, or the red, or the orange, etc etc.

[cybercoma]

You missed my point...which is...it doesn't matter which party you vote for of the major parties...the difference between them appears vast but that's by design.

Being "sick" of cheerleading is an emotional reaction to a game that's been rigged from the start.

We're all losing? We've been losing for as long as we've been lazy...and that's a long, long time.

If you truly believed that, you would march on Ottawa and violently overthrow the corrupt institutions. Otherwise, you tacitly endorse it.

[cybercoma]

All of that is either crap (surrounded with criminals) or policy. None of it actually gets to the deep fear and hatred so many on the Left have of Harper in comparing him to some sort of sinister darth vader type who wants to destroy the country, if not the world.

I thank you for being the first to demonstrate that bug-eyed horror so many on the Left have of Harper. A megalomaniac, yet? Do you even know what that is or is it just a pejorative term you can use to conjure up images of an evil overlord hiding in your bedroom closet.

You asked the question. It's not really my problem you don't like or agree with the answer.

[kward]

If you truly believed that, you would march on Ottawa and violently overthrow the corrupt institutions. Otherwise, you tacitly endorse it.

Yes, because I'm ten feet tall and bullet proof.

[Argus]

You asked the question. It's not really my problem you don't like or agree with the answer.

Your answer was made up of a number of petty, and often imagined grievances against policy issues. None of that explains your hatred and fear of the man himself, and the paranoia of many on the Left that he's Darth Vader planning on blowing up their planet.

[Evening Star]

There's probably many media "outlets" who support the Liberals, ones who support the NDP, ones who support the Greens, etc.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2011

Edited December 8, 2012 by Evening Star

[kward]

Really?

http://en.wikipedia...._election,_2011

Define "media".

[Evening Star]

Define "media".

I was working with this definition (from Oxford British Dictionary of English):

media 1 |ˈmiːdɪə|

noun

1 (the media) [ treated as sing. or pl. ] the main means of mass communication (television, radio, and newspapers) regarded collectively: their demands were publicized by the media.

and please remember that I said "major media outlet".

[kward]

I was working with this definition (from Oxford British Dictionary of English):

and please remember that I said "major media outlet".

Please remember that I said "media".

[Wayward Son]

It wouldn't matter which major federal party was in charge, the laundry list of complaints would remain, just with different items, and the complaints would come from the herd who live in the blue pen, or the red, or the orange, etc etc.

I am not partisan. And you appear to making false equivalences throughout this thread. Would there be complaints no matter who would be in charge? Of course, but there are differences. Few people would have led Canada into the Iraq war, or deregulated the banking system. Harper would have if he was 1) PM and 2) Had a majority. I don't feel that any political party is really strong when it comes to science or ethical behavior. But in the case of the former Harper's conservatives are the worst and in the case of the latter they are almost as bad as McGuinty's Liberals. You can sit there and say that it wouldn't matter who was in charge all day long, but that doesn't change reality.

[Evening Star]

Please remember that I said "media".

My original point was that there is little to justify the persecution complex that Conservatives seem to have. The endorsements of the majority of major print media outlets seems like a significant point of support there. Whether or not there are plenty of minor media outlets that endorse other parties does not seem to be a relevant point.

[kward]

I am not partisan. And you appear to making false equivalences throughout this thread. Would there be complaints no matter who would be in charge? Of course, but there are differences. Few people would have led Canada into the Iraq war, or deregulated the banking system. Harper would have if he was 1) PM and 2) Had a majority. I don't feel that any political party is really strong when it comes to science or ethical behavior. But in the case of the former Harper's conservatives are the worst and in the case of the latter they are almost as bad as McGuinty's Liberals. You can sit there and say that it wouldn't matter who was in charge all day long, but that doesn't change reality.

So, let me get this straight...one of your grievances with Harper is based on things that he didn't do when he wasn't in charge?

I sit here and say it doesn't matter who's in charge among the major political parties because it's true. We've seen each of the Cons, Libs, and NDP in charge at some level or another, and the laundry list has always been there.

In reality, can that change? Yes.

[kward]

My original point was that there is little to justify the persecution complex that Conservatives seem to have. The endorsements of the majority of major print media outlets seems like a significant point of support there. Whether or not there are plenty of minor media outlets that endorse other parties does not seem to be a relevant point.

You've re-defined terms to make my point appear non-relevant.

You said nearly all media originally...that is what I took exception with...you did not say "the majority of major print media outlets" in the original post I quoted.

[Evening Star]

Ha, OK, I see that now. I did say "nearly every media outlet" when I should have said "nearly every major media outlet". I think my fundamental point still stands though.

[CPCFTW]

Because he creates too many jobs?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/canadas-job-gains-surprisingly-strong-unemployment-rate-dips/article6078223/

I don't think the haters even know anymore... before it was the "hidden agenda"... now it's just because.

[Evening Star]

Did Harper himself create all those jobs?

[Wayward Son]

So, let me get this straight...one of your grievances with Harper is based on things that he didn't do when he wasn't in charge?

I sit here and say it doesn't matter who's in charge among the major political parties because it's true. We've seen each of the Cons, Libs, and NDP in charge at some level or another, and the laundry list has always been there.

In reality, can that change? Yes.

The question in this thread was why do people hate Harper. I don't hate Harper, but I listed reasons why I don't like the man. Among those reasons is that he made it clear at the time when issues such as bank deregulation and the Iraq war were being discussed that he would have chosen the options that were clearly stupid and would have had grave consequences. That matters, especially when he became PM at a time when the job of running the country was much easier because the previous governments had decided not to choose the clearly stupid options when they had the chance. The fact that he would made those two wrongheaded decisions because of ideology and a belief that you must support the US no matter how stupid the decision they are making is also speaks volumes.

And the fact that Harper has said that he would have pursued two completely directions then the one chosen on those two issues shows that your statement that it doesn't matter who is charge is wrong and ridiculous. It does matter. Countless examples from history have shown this. The fact that you are trying to state that because different parties in charge would lead to different grievances and therefore it doesn't matter who is charge is equally wrong and ridiculous. Nobody claimed that a different government would result in everyone being happy. But that is entirely different then saying that it doesn't matter who is charge. It would have been no different if Al Gore won in 2000 right? It would have made no difference if Breckinridge defeated Lincoln in 1860 right?

Edited December 9, 2012 by Wayward Son

[cybercoma]

Your answer was made up of a number of petty, and often imagined grievances against policy issues. None of that explains your hatred and fear of the man himself, and the paranoia of many on the Left that he's Darth Vader planning on blowing up their planet.

I don't hate or fear the man himself. Nor does anyone else. That's nothing more than a red-herring for what you see as petty grievances, while others find them to be serious concerns.

[kward]

Ha, OK, I see that now. I did say "nearly every media outlet" when I should have said "nearly every major media outlet". I think my fundamental point still stands though.

Okay, so at first it was nearly all media, then it was nearly every major print media, now it's nearly every major media. My point is there are plenty of media out there...papers, magazines, radio shows, podcasts, blogs, webzines, websites, TV personalities, etc etc etc who support other parties besides the Conservatives. If you'd like to redefine terms again to "nearly every major media outlet", we might have to figure out what's considered major, but then yes...you may have a point. In saying "nearly every media outlet"? Not so much.

[kward]

And the fact that Harper has said that he would have pursued two completely directions then the one chosen on those two issues shows that your statement that it doesn't matter who is charge is wrong and ridiculous. It does matter. Countless examples from history have shown this. The fact that you are trying to state that because different parties in charge would lead to different grievances and therefore it doesn't matter who is charge is equally wrong and ridiculous. Nobody claimed that a different government would result in everyone being happy. But that is entirely different then saying that it doesn't matter who is charge. It would have been no different if Al Gore won in 2000 right? It would have made no difference if Breckinridge defeated Lincoln in 1860 right?

If you want to be revisionist fine, but you're re-defining terms.

What I've said is it doesn't matter whom you vote for...as in, right now at this time in Canada. I'm not talking about not voting for anyone ever. I'm decrying the lack of a real option right now that stands out as different from the pack. The major parties are all in the same corporate pockets. The corporations and banks are in charge, not the parties. And no one in Ottawa has stepped forward to put an end to that reality.

Al Gore winning in 2000? Who knows? You could drive yourself mental playing that game. Would 9/11 have happened? Would the War on Terror have taken place? Would the US have invaded Iraq? Would Would Would Would Would It never ends.

In the here and now Harper is no different than whomever the Liberals will put out there, and no different than Mulcair. Of course that's not what we're fed by the media, and who owns them? It's all a game. Everyone in Ottawa is making a handsome salary playing it at the expense of the Canadian people. You advocate playing into their hands, apparently...I don't.

[Evening Star]

Okay, so at first it was nearly all media, then it was nearly every major print media, now it's nearly every major media. My point is there are plenty of media out there...papers, magazines, radio shows, podcasts, blogs, webzines, websites, TV personalities, etc etc etc who support other parties besides the Conservatives. If you'd like to redefine terms again to "nearly every major media outlet", we might have to figure out what's considered major, but then yes...you may have a point. In saying "nearly every media outlet"? Not so much.

Yeah, I was agreeing with you that my first post was wrong. I think I meant to type "major" but neglected to do so (?). I suppose you're right that I was getting a little fast and loose with "print media" vs "major media". Anyway, it's clear enough that the editorial board of the majority of nearly every major print media outlet did endorse the Conservatives, which seems enough to support my original point so I should probably leave it there. I'm not sure that looking at explicit endorsements from nationwide broadcasting entities would change that. (I'm not including random blogs, podcasts, campus radio programmes, Facebook statuses, etc as major media outlets.)