GOVERNMENT FALLS

[shoop]

Your sad, sad attempt at painting Harper as an 'American' is lost.

The latest Ipsos-Reid poll puts the Libs and Conservatives in a tie. Not a *statistical* tie, but an actual tie. 31% to 31%, which would translate into a Conservative govenment.

Ipsos poll...

The reality is that the man has no principles and no optimistic vision for Canda. His whole career has been devoted to bringing an American philosophy to Canada and to integrating Canada into that economy.

[scribblet]

If Harper is a "man of his word," which word is it that he is a man of? Is it the word of a dozen years ago or the word of today? Is it that of "Firewall" Harper or the all inclusive Harper of his speech?

The reality is that the man has no principles and no optimistic vision for Canda. His whole career has been devoted to bringing an American philosophy to Canada and to integrating Canada into that economy.

His "softer" talk of the present is out of political necessity not out of conviction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He is presenting a vision of Canada, the firewall etc. was years ago, he has changed and softened his stance on issues. Its a different party, different people, different views, trying to tie him back to something he said years ago, doesn't reflect on the current situation. His accountability/ethics and democratic reform package is good, a great step forward.

Martin isn't exactly a man of his words to say the least.

I've heard Paul Martin twice refer to Harper and the CPC as "neocons" since the non-confidence vote. I believe this is a subtle appeal to anti-American sentiments in Canada, since "neocon" is often used today as a pejorative label for the Bush White House, and used as the same pjorative lable here.

I hope Harper's team does a better job of deflecting the liberals smears then they did before. Watch for the "neocon" label (anong others) begin popping up as part of the standard Liberal script.

[Guest eureka]

So his word of today is the one to be believed; evn though his word of today has been the word of necessity to soften the antipathy of voters. That meant no possibility of ever attaining power.

What if his party wins the election and he then has the power he craves? Will his word then change again and become unbelievable or believable?

Harper is a neocon and a neolib. That has nothing to do with any attempt to associate him with Bush or any other figure.

He is those things and so is a very large portion of his party. And that is the ideal that wrecked both Britain and the USA and has been rejected in every civilized country, including Britain, except the USA. Do we have to adopt an outworn mythology in order to have a "change" in government?

Though whether the US is a civilized country now is questionable.

[shoop]

Are we talking about Harper or Martin? Harper has publicly supported and opposed SSM, Continental Missile Defense, The GST....

What if Martin wins a majoprity and he than has the power he craves? Will his word then change again and become unbelievable or believable?

So his word of today is the one to be believed; evn though his word of today has been the word of necessity to soften the antipathy of voters. That meant no possibility of ever attaining power.

What if his party wins the election and he then has the power he craves? Will his word then change again and become unbelievable or believable?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[southerncomfort]

So his word of today is the one to be believed; evn though his word of today has been the word of necessity to soften the antipathy of voters. That meant no possibility of ever attaining power.

What if his party wins the election and he then has the power he craves? Will his word then change again and become unbelievable or believable?

Harper is a neocon and a neolib. That has nothing to do with any attempt to associate him with Bush or any other figure.

He is those things and so is a very large portion of his party. And that is the ideal that wrecked both Britain and the USA and has been rejected in every civilized country, including Britain,  except the USA. Do we have to adopt an outworn mythology in order to have a "change" in government?

Though whether the US is a civilized country now is questionable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can you be a neocon and a neolib

Martin's dithered about a few things, SSM for one, why is it okay for him to change his mind. double standards here.

Playing on anti American sympathies doesn't cut it either.

[normanchateau]

So his word of today is the one to be believed; evn though his word of today has been the word of necessity to soften the antipathy of voters. That meant no possibility of ever attaining power.

What if his party wins the election and he then has the power he craves? Will his word then change again and become unbelievable or believable?

Harper has flipflopped and dithered so many times that few even know his current position on healthcare. Here's what it was last year when he actually attacked the Preston Manning and Mike Harris position on health care:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050430091919834

[speaker]

Where do Canadian Political parties lie, in relation to American parties? You assume we know more about American parties than you know about Canadian.

Where do Canadian political parties lie in relation to each other? Wherever they are, especially once they get into power. It's just one lie after the other. So probably not that different from our American cousins.

The reformed Conservatives as evidenced by a few of the posters on here are a pretty rabid bunch who think they are somewhat to the conservative side of bush, or would be if that's what bush wanted. When in power it's every man for himself.

The Liberals are like the smart players in The Price is Right! Their policies are just enough to the liberal side of the reformed conservatives to grab the voters, and at the same time liberal enough to be just on the edge of the NDs. Their policies tend to be like that, so confused that nothing gets accomplished. When in power it's every man for himself.

The ND's on the other hand originated as a party of the left but with each succeeding election edge closer to the Liberal ideal of meaning nothing while saying a great deal. Never been tested federally in power, but when in power provincially have the same tendancy to be every man for himself.

[shoop]

You can't be both at the same time. Just shows the intellectual vacuity of Liberal supporters, throwing out terms without understand.

Great point about anti-American sympathies.

How can you be a neocon and a neolib     

Martin's dithered about a few things, SSM for one, why is it okay for him to change his mind. double standards here.

Playing on anti American sympathies doesn't cut it either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

How can you be a neocon and a neolib is easy to understand if you know what the terms mean.

To participate in political discussion at a time when both are highly relevant to the course of Canada, you should familiarise yourself with the meanings.

[shoop]

How about enlighting us o arrogant one?!

How can you be a neocon and a neolib is easy to understand if you know what the terms mean.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[scribblet]

How can you be a neocon and a neolib is easy to understand if you know what the terms mean.

To participate in political discussion at a time when both are highly relevant to the course of Canada, you should familiarise yourself with the meanings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really, gee, why didn't I think of that. Personally I thought a neo con was a new convict but then, heck what do I know. Actually the terms are completely irrelevant, they are names, thats all, they mean nothing.

[shoop]

Touché scriblett. Typical eureka, no support or substance, pretty vacuous. Kinda like the Liberals.

Actually the terms are completely irrelevant, they are names, thats all, they mean nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

Put simply, one is tantamount to a Social Conservative. The other to a fiscal one. Those terms are euphemisms though, to avoid the harshness of the true description that goes much deeper and reveals what it behind the pretense in the "Conservative" split.

Not so hard, is it!

[August1991]

Put simply, one is tantamount to a Social Conservative. The other to a fiscal one. Those terms are euphemisms though, to avoid the harshness of the true description that goes much deeper and reveals what it behind the pretense in the "Conservative" split.

Not so hard, is it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what would that "true description" be, eureka?

Something else. Why does the Left feel the need to keep changing names for its adversaries and for itself? Conservatives, neo-Conservatives, neo-cons. And I used to know Leftists who frankly referred to themselves as Communists, Marxists or socialists. I rarely if ever hear those terms now. Leftists seem to call themselves "progressives" now.

[shoop]

Wow, what a pathetic attempt by eureka to cover up. Weaker than usual...

And what would that "true description" be, eureka?

Something else.  Why does the Left feel the need to keep changing names for its adversaries and for itself?  Conservatives, neo-Conservatives, neo-cons.  And I used to know Leftists who frankly referred to themselves as Communists, Marxists or socialists.  I rarely if ever hear those terms now.  Leftists seem to call themselves "progressives" now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[tml12]

Wow, what a pathetic attempt by eureka to cover up. Weaker than usual...

And what would that "true description" be, eureka?

Something else.  Why does the Left feel the need to keep changing names for its adversaries and for itself?  Conservatives, neo-Conservatives, neo-cons.  And I used to know Leftists who frankly referred to themselves as Communists, Marxists or socialists.  I rarely if ever hear those terms now.  Leftists seem to call themselves "progressives" now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nor does it make much sense.

[Guest eureka]

August, I think Black Dog in one of the threads gave a pretty good analysis of neocon and neolib. There is no need to take it further than that.

Fiscal and social conservative is what this Conservative likes to use. It uses the terms to disguise the reality.

Marxists etc. have sweet nothing to do with it. These are the reincarnation of the old Laissez Faire joined with those who long for what Dickens called in a great poem "The Good Old Tory Days."

That shoop cannot understand this does not surprise me. I think, though, that you can. You may even disagree if you like and perhaps we can call up the memories of Thatcher and Reagan to judge. I would say ask Bush but he would only say he works hard.

[scribblet]

Put simply, one is tantamount to a Social Conservative. The other to a fiscal one. Those terms are euphemisms though, to avoid the harshness of the true description that goes much deeper and reveals what it behind the pretense in the "Conservative" split.

Not so hard, is it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what would that "true description" be, eureka?

Something else. Why does the Left feel the need to keep changing names for its adversaries and for itself? Conservatives, neo-Conservatives, neo-cons. And I used to know Leftists who frankly referred to themselves as Communists, Marxists or socialists. I rarely if ever hear those terms now. Leftists seem to call themselves "progressives" now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They change the names as they go along, its a subtle A form of demeaning and slurring the opponent without using any actual 'slurs'. Tricky

A neo con is actually a ‘reformed liberal', a new conservative who was unhappy with the excesses of ultra liberalism. Since then, the term has been used to describe a hard right conservative, probably what some consider social conservative. Note Martin's use of the word right off the bat, again, a subtle way of giving the conservatives a bad name.

In reality, today's CPC is a completely new party, new leader, new set of policies but the opposition will continue to put forward their accusations and definitions. I suggest people who do have a lack of understanding and knowledge of what the policies are, read up on them and discuss them, not what they like to throw around as their facts and ttheir absolutes.

I don't agree with all their policies, but I'd take them over liberal corruption and sleazeball tactics anyday.

[cybercoma]

August, I think Black Dog in one of the threads gave a pretty good analysis of neocon and neolib. There is no need to take it further than that.

Fiscal and social conservative is what this Conservative likes to use. It uses the terms to disguise the reality.

Marxists etc. have sweet nothing to do with it. These are the reincarnation of the old Laissez Faire joined with those who long for what Dickens called in a great poem "The Good Old Tory Days."

That shoop cannot understand this does not surprise me. I think, though, that you can. You may even disagree if you like and perhaps we can call up the memories of Thatcher and Reagan to judge. I would say ask Bush but he would only say he works hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope you're just playing the card and not actually this much of an arrogant neanderthal in real life, because I'm certain if you are there are a number of people who probably want to punch you in the mouth.

[Guest eureka]

Want to be the first in line, CC?

I am not playing any card. This Conservative Party embodies both elements. As Thelonius quoted one of his Conservative acquaintances on another site, Harper is a madman. I believe that to be true in the sense that he probably meant it.

This Conservative party is dedicated to the exacerbation of social and economic inequality in Canada and to the enshrinement of privilege. That is a neocon put briefly.

This Conservative is fanatical about "The Market;" about deregulation; about "private enterprise." That, again briefly, is neolib.

It is a slave to thinking that went out more than a hundred years ago and is discredited everywhere except with our friends to the South.

[sharkman]

I am not playing any card. This Conservative Party embodies both elements. As Thelonius quoted one of his Conservative acquaintances on another site, Harper is a madman. I believe that to be true in the sense that he probably meant it.

This Conservative party is dedicated to the exacerbation of social and economic inequality in Canada and to the enshrinement of privilege. That is a neocon put briefly.

This Conservative is fanatical about "The Market;" about deregulation; about "private enterprise." That, again briefly, is neolib.

It is a slave to thinking that went out more than a hundred years ago and is discredited everywhere except with our friends to the South.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Harper is a madman? I know you think little of the CPC, but to think they could elect a leader who is mad in any particular sense only shows your bias is blinding you. And to claim that the CPC is dedicated to the exacerbation of social and economic inequality and enshrinement of priveledge makes you sound quite shrill. At least you could have some evidence to back up your wild claims. Perhaps none exists?

Although, to be fair, someone had threatened you so perhaps your response was affected by this.

[Guest eureka]

You may not have noted that I cited the CONSERVATIVE who came away from a meeting saying that Harper was a madman. I qualified that by assuming that he meant that his policies were madness. To hold those policy views is a form of madness.

Harper is quite explicit in his desire to exacerbate social and economic inequalities. His whole career has been devoted to the dissemination of ideas to achieve that. He has never had a real job, of course so he knows very little of the world outside of his biases.

I have on a number of occasions here, cited the Reform Party Caucus statement of 1988 written mainly by Harper with the blessing of Manning. Nobody bites on that as I assume our Conservative friends would not like it to be brought into the open.

In that statement, Harper called for Means Tested access to healthcare and different levels of access for the wealthy than for the middle classes and the poor. He has moved a long way from that in his public pronouncements since but that is out of political necessity not belief. He also favours greater privatization of healthcare with the consequent loss of care to the poor - just like America

The stated positions of Harper in the past have been to reform the tax system to further benefit the wealthy compared to the middle classes and the poor. He has opposed the idea of equalization payments to the poorer provinces and has not suggested anything to take their place.

That should be enough to show what Harper thinks of social programs and of how he views social and economic equality. Those inequalities have been growing now for thirty years. Harper is clear that he wants to reinforce the armies of reaction and to grind down the :underclasses" further.

That is not from my "biases." It is truth about a country that is deteriorating from the civil society that we once had.

[shoop]

But cutting the GST absolutely helps people from the middle classes and the poor more than it helps the rich. Weren't anti-poverty groups originally fighting against the GST as a regressive tax? Doesn't that make a proposal to cut the GST a good thing for anti-poverty groups?

The stated positions of Harper in the past have been to reform the tax system to further benefit the wealthy compared to the middle classes and the poor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

Have you ever looked at the expenditure patterns of the poor in Canada? After food and rent, they have nothing to spend: the GST is irrelevant to them.

Why have so many countries of Europe found it better to have much higher rates of their GST equivalents and lower taxes of other kinds.

They have achieved far more satisfactory levels of economic equality that way.

[shoop]

Come on, show me a European country with combined state/provincial-national income taxes than Canada.

How many of the 'poor' you speak of spend the majority of their food dollar on buying food from grocery stores as opposed to fast food which is taxed with the GST? But please do post links to these expenditure patterns you speak of.

If they have 'nothing left' the Liberal tax cuts will help them even less as they are likely pulling in less than the basic personal exemption.

Have you ever looked at the expenditure patterns of the poor in Canada?  After food and rent, they have nothing to spend: the GST is irrelevant to them.

Why have so many countries of Europe found it better to have much higher rates of their GST equivalents and lower taxes of other kinds.

They have achieved far more satisfactory levels of economic equality that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>