Harper's Strategy

[kimmy]

Threats of physical violence are a new low for this forum, I'm sure. Could people at least pretend to be civil?

I also fail to see what insult has been directed toward veterans as a group, eureka, only at yourself.

Has anyone here seen the movie "Starship Troopers"? It was a science-fiction movie set in an a future Earth. While the focus of the movie was violence and explosions and stupidity, the movie also presented a interesting look at a fascist state of the future, and was worth a look for for that alone. One of the tenets of this society was that people could only become a Citizen and obtain full rights by serving in the military. I wonder if perhaps something similar is being advocated in this thread.

The veterans have obviously given much more to this country than those of us who've never fought in a war. If a veteran says that he's stood in a trench with bullets flying past his head for this country, what can I tell him in response? I've paid taxes for a few years, that's about all. So if we have a difference of opinion on what the country should be like, his view obviously trumps mine by virtue of having risked life and limb for this country. So, having this class of citizen whose views are more important than the rest of us, shouldn't this be reflected in some way? Perhaps we should do away with elections entirely, and just have a ruling council of veterans. That way we wouldn't have to worry about betraying the veterans by holding the wrong opinions or voting the wrong way.

The veterans came home from WWII and demanded social programs... in 1966. Prior to that, they spent 20 years enjoying unprecedented economic prosperity. This quest for social progress that began when the veterans came home... it certainly took its time bearing fruit, yes? I mean, I wasn't there at the time... but looking at the timetable... it looks as though the programs that the returning soldiers are alleged to have demanded didn't become law in Canada until the returning soldiers' kids were old enough to vote.

In speaking for all veterans (except those who disagree with him, whose opinions are inherently less valid) eureka claims that veterans will feel betrayed by the dismantlement of social progress.

In speaking for all young Canadians (except those who disagree with me, whose opinions are inherently less valid) I question whether the veterans are as fiercely committed to the Just Society as eureka believes. For many of us young people, an enduring image of the veterans is of those who waged legal warfare to keep turbans out of Legion halls, angry old men red-faced with rage at the prospect of accomodating someone's religious differences. Is it not fair for me to wonder whether these people are really in tune with the Liberal Vision?

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

... If a veteran says that he's stood in a trench with bullets flying past his head for this country, what can I tell him in response?

'Thank you.'

So if we have a difference of opinion on what the country should be like, his view obviously trumps mine by virtue of having risked life and limb for this country. So, having this class of citizen whose views are more important than the rest of us, shouldn't this be reflected in some way?

The obvious answer is that veteran's opinions do not trump others'. All citizens are equal, and while having made a sacrifice should entitle one to the gratitude of one's country, it in no way makes one's opinions more valid than others.

[Guest eureka]

A veteran's opinions do not trump yours, Kimmy: not at all. The denial of what they fought for on the social front, from which you have benefited, is a betrayal.

Social programmes did not begin in 1966 and there were many inmprovements to the existing system before tha. The growth of unionism; labour laws and a host of other things came in before that; Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights

They came in because of the social activism of a class that had been impotent before the war. The pressures for reform were enormous and Canada was just slower than some Western societies in heeding them.

If you see no insult to veterans, then I suggest that you reread. The denial of those things is an insult; an egregious one.

[fellowtraveller]

But a lot more people seem to be alarmend by Harper than they were by Manning.

No doubt because Harper is seen as a much more serious threat.

Kimmy, you need some reference to Harpers predeliction for eating babies, Liberal babies, to make your list complete.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Kimmy, you need some reference to Harpers predeliction for eating babies, Liberal babies, to make your list complete.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All the lamentation by tories is making me laugh. But the script will soon tire.

Consupporter: Why don't you vote for Conservatives?

NonCon: I worry that the Conservative party will carry out the policies that their vocal supporters and MPs have advocated, for example X, Y, and Z.

Consupporter: That's just scaremongering! Harper doesn't eat babies!

Noncon: But my concern is the possibility of X,Y, or Z, not eating babies.

Consupporter: X, Y, and Z are vitally important policies for the public good.

Noncon: I disagree, and so, I don't vote for a party that supports such things as X,Y, and Z.

Consupporter: You've been brainwashed by the Liberals! Stephen Harper does not eat babies.

[cybercoma]

Kimmy, you need some reference to Harpers predeliction for eating babies, Liberal babies, to make your list complete.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All the lamentation by tories is making me laugh. But the script will soon tire.

Consupporter: Why don't you vote for Conservatives?

NonCon: I worry that the Conservative party will carry out the policies that their vocal supporters and MPs have advocated, for example X, Y, and Z.

Consupporter: That's just scaremongering! Harper doesn't eat babies!

Noncon: But my concern is the possibility of X,Y, or Z, not eating babies.

Consupporter: X, Y, and Z are vitally important policies for the public good.

Noncon: I disagree, and so, I don't vote for a party that supports such things as X,Y, and Z.

Consupporter: You've been brainwashed by the Liberals! Stephen Harper does not eat babies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But Stephen Harper does eat babies and he also bathes in the blood of our healthcare workers.

I don't think any true Conservative supporter would deny these facts.

He's also a misogynist and bigot. Tell all your friends.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Kimmy, you need some reference to Harpers predeliction for eating babies, Liberal babies, to make your list complete.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All the lamentation by tories is making me laugh. But the script will soon tire.

Consupporter: Why don't you vote for Conservatives?

NonCon: I worry that the Conservative party will carry out the policies that their vocal supporters and MPs have advocated, for example X, Y, and Z.

Consupporter: That's just scaremongering! Harper doesn't eat babies!

Noncon: But my concern is the possibility of X,Y, or Z, not eating babies.

Consupporter: X, Y, and Z are vitally important policies for the public good.

Noncon: I disagree, and so, I don't vote for a party that supports such things as X,Y, and Z.

Consupporter: You've been brainwashed by the Liberals! Stephen Harper does not eat babies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But Stephen Harper does eat babies and he also bathes in the blood of our healthcare workers.

I don't think any true Conservative supporter would deny these facts.

He's also a misogynist and bigot. Tell all your friends.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See what I mean?

[cybercoma]

haha, sorry...I love those kinds of accusations.

[Black Dog]

Fearmongers take note: Harper *hearts* public health care

In an effort to defuse an issue that derailed him during the final weeks of last year's federal election campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper announced yesterday that he now fully supports both the Canada Health Act and the role of the federal government in medicare.

It was a dramatic shift for a man who four years ago advised Alberta to withdraw from medicare and who two years ago wrote that Ottawa should scrap the Canada Health Act.

Speaking at a luncheon hosted by the right-of-centre Fraser Institute, Harper said a plan to gut medicare, floated recently by former Reform party leader Preston Manning and former Ontario premier Mike Harris, was both naïve and misguided.

Mr. Dithers, meet your opponnent: Mr. Waffles.

It's official: the Cons are Liberal lite: same mushy taste, none of the corruption. Of course, I don't think we're seeing so much a change of heart as a change in strategy. I highly doubt the former head of the public-healthcare hating NCC had a St. Paul-esque epiphany on the road to 24 Sussex. What this seems to indicate is that Harper is trying even harde to assuage the fears of Liberal voters and paint himself as a viable alternative. Whether that means a change of policy is anyone's guess. I'd say no, and that Harper's people were probably on the phone to his friends in the private health insurance induustry and such all afternoon, working to calm their fears.

[Argus]

Unfortunately, you may be right, August. What that coward said of me and other veterans, I would want a non verbal answer for if I were face to face.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Coward? Does it take bravery to call you a senile fool? I gave no insults towards veterans, only to a loud mouthed, braying, ignorant ass who is incapable of discussing anything without resorting to personal insults.

[Black Dog]

I gave no insults towards veterans, only to a loud mouthed, braying, ignorant ass who is incapable of discussing anything without resorting to personal insults.

I just wanted to preserve that for future entry into the Alanis Morrisette Memorial Irony Awards.

[Guest eureka]

Actually, it would take bravery if you were not in your den or wherever you lurk.

The insults were from you but you cannot take it in return. You have been that way for months now and I wonder just how brave you are.

[Argus]

The veterans came home from WWII and demanded social programs... in 1966.. Prior to that, they spent 20 years enjoying unprecedented economic prosperity. This quest for social progress that began when the veterans came home... it certainly took its time bearing fruit, yes?

As I suggested, it is nonsense to say veterans came back from Europe demanding social programs. Utterly ludicrous. They came back hoping against hope that they would not be like the WW1 veterans, and come back to poverty and no jobs. Luckily, they came back to pretty good times, as you suggest. My parents had a swelll time living in the army of occupation in Germany after the war, with cheap booze, cheap servants, and cheap housing. It was party, party and see Europe on the weekend. Then they came home in the early fifties to good times and good jobs.

The advent of social programs came with the changing times more then two decades after the war ended, and came largely uncosted and unpaid for, with borrowed money which still makes up a big chunk of the debt and which the rest of us will be paying for for decades to come.

Not to say I disagree with the "greatest generation" philosophy, but every generation has its idiots, and I feel entirely free to disagree with them.

[Black Dog]

Okay you two: cut it out. Your infantile squabbling is dragging this whole board down and I don't think Greg would be remiss in suspending the both of yous for a while until you cool off. If that doesn't happen, could you at least explain how this exchange of ridiculous insults, spanning god knows how many threads now, adds anything of value to these fora? An dif you can't do that please: STFU.

[Argus]

Actually, it would take bravery if you were not in your den or wherever you lurk.

The insults were from you but you cannot take it in return. You have been that way for months now and I wonder just how brave you are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you can't take insults than don't mouth them. That should be simple enough, even for you.

[Argus]

All the lamentation by tories is making me laugh.  But the script will soon tire.

Consupporter:  Why don't you vote for Conservatives?

NonCon: I worry that the Conservative party will carry out the policies that their vocal supporters and MPs have advocated, for example X, Y, and Z.

Consupporter:  That's just scaremongering!  Harper doesn't eat babies!

Noncon:  But my concern is the possibility of X,Y, or Z, not eating babies.

Consupporter:  X, Y, and Z are vitally important policies for the public good.

Noncon:  I disagree, and so, I don't vote for a party that supports such things as X,Y, and Z.

Consupporter:  You've been brainwashed by the Liberals!  Stephen Harper does not eat babies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would you care to define X Y, and Z?

[Guest eureka]

Don't ask me how ot started, BD. That angry man has been spewing out this vitriol following almost everything I post. I tried moderate responses at the first, but will take this no longer.

I can hardly see my screen through the glare that comes from his incandescent rage.

[Argus]

Okay you two: cut it out. Your infantile squabbling is dragging this whole board down and I don't think Greg would be remiss in suspending the both of yous for a while until you cool off. If that doesn't happen, could you at least explain how this exchange of ridiculous insults, spanning god knows how many threads now, adds anything of value to these fora? An dif you can't do that please: STFU.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are hardly one to lecture on respectful discourse. Nevertheless, you are, just this once, entirely correct. I am an old (well, middle aged, well almost middle aged) Scot who does not suffer fools gladly. I will however, in future, attempt a smile... It will actually be more of a grimace, but fools being fools might possibly mistake it for a smile, and thus gladness. And so, they will perceive my gladness and perhaps, shut up.

As for childishness, you are again correct, but in my own defence, I think I can most clearly and uncategorically say that... HE STARTED IT!

[Argus]

Don't ask me how ot started, BD. That angry man has been spewing out this vitriol following almost everything I post. I tried moderate responses at the first, but will take this no longer.

I can hardly see my screen through the glare that comes from his incandescent rage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[The Terrible Sweal]

All the lamentation by tories is making me laugh.  But the script will soon tire.

Consupporter:  Why don't you vote for Conservatives?

NonCon: I worry that the Conservative party will carry out the policies that their vocal supporters and MPs have advocated, for example X, Y, and Z.

Consupporter:  That's just scaremongering!  Harper doesn't eat babies!

Noncon:  But my concern is the possibility of X,Y, or Z, not eating babies.

Consupporter:  X, Y, and Z are vitally important policies for the public good.

Noncon:  I disagree, and so, I don't vote for a party that supports such things as X,Y, and Z.

Consupporter:  You've been brainwashed by the Liberals!  Stephen Harper does not eat babies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would you care to define X Y, and Z?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the point of the tory pantomime is clear without that detail. For examples of X Y amd Z I refer you to my post on the thread: "Hidden Agenda..." thread

[August1991]

I'll aptly resurrect this thread to express an opinion, and restate my first post on this thread:

Harper must say - Nathan Phillips style - "I will be a prime minister for all Canadians."

Torontonians once voted for a Jewish mayor. Ontarians may vote for a Calgarian Prime Minister.

As another, better intro, read this link:

Like Robert Mugabe, Paul Martin has simply declared that the constitution is whatever he says it is.

Will he get away with it? What do you think? One of Paul Wells’ readers at Maclean’s , Jerry in Saskatchewan, e-mailed Inkless with his take:

She’s done a great service for Canada.

Harper only wants power, and if he destroys Canada, to bad!

Now smarten up, pass the budget, and let Paul Martin show us what he can do!

Mark Steyn

----

Anyone with an ounce of understanding of Canadian politics knows fully what has happened in the past few days.

PM PM did "bad" to do "good". Like Trudeau, Chretien, King before him, Martin apparently did the Liberal deed, maintained power and saved us all. Except, Paul Martin is no Pierre Trudeau - I wonder whether he's even a Chretien.

Let's be honest here. Most people don't want an election because no one wants to face the fact that English-Canada is in very, very serious trouble. Serious trouble? An election would force a choice between a scheming, crooked old guy and a too-smart Christian Boy Scout.

Serious trouble? Canada is on the brink of utter collapse. Does anyone in this country notice?

The French recently had to choose, in their second tour election, between la pègre and Le Pen. Many English Canadians feel such is their choice. They would prefer to avoid the whole question. Denial.

----

I listened to Radio-Canada for this Commons' vote tonite. (No comment on RC but they had profs from U of Ottawa and Sherbrooke.) After the result, I liked Duceppe's reference to Levesque: A la prochaine. Duceppe has seen it all. He's an honest man doing an ingrate's job.

Harper's comments were English-Canadian civilized: We will be a Loyal Opposition and an alternative government, as we should be.

I thought Martin's comments were typically American: "Why can't we all be friends?"

----

So, Harper's strategy?

Harper must represent ALL of English-Canada - gays, lesbians, Bay Street lawyers, rich women, Newfoundlanders - and he must try to do this without offending French-Canada. He must try to find a way to defeat these criminals without using criminal tactics. Harper must remain "democratic". Any damn fool can burn down a barn. La politique du pire, c'est la pire des politiques.

In the past, the Liberals managed this kind of nonsense (Gomery, scandal and so on) but I think that it won't work now. The stakes are too high this time. The Liberals are taking great risks. As a response, Harper should not be tempted.

"Don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver or gold..."

Les gens de ce pays...

Of course, Harper will be vilified. But he should not give up. The country is in serious, serious trouble but most English-Canadians don't want to admit it. Harper is the reminder of the problem because he tells the truth. They prefer Martin because he lies. It is easier.

Harper should continue to tell the truth honestly. I suspect English Canadians will learn to appreciate his honesty. In rough weather on a ship, you want the basic facts - and a true hand. Why do Newfoundlanders have the word Captain. Who wrote this Captain's Daughter?

-----

Where is Layton in all this?

The Liberals are corrupt, Harper is a SoCon, Canadians have no choice but PM PM. Well, why hasn't Layton taken up the slack?

I happen to think that Layton and Harper are honest English-Canadians. To tell the truth, Layton, Harper and Duceppe are honest, normal Canadians who stand by what they say.

Paul Martin, Belinda and the power hungry rich-kids around them are the fraud. But officially, they're "Canada".

And if I say that PM PM and Belinda don't represent what my country can be, I am told that I am not Canadian.