Oh, that lying liberal media

[normanchateau]

Harper has no personality.  Remember when Mulroney stood up in the debate and said (paraphrase): "you sir (turner), have no monopoly on patriotism!  i grew up in this country, I come from a CANADIAN family...etc"

That's what Harper needs:  some backbone!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree that Harper has no backbone. On the issue of softwood lumber, he not only said that he'd take a hardline position with the US and refuse to bargain (September 9, 2005), he subsequently said he'd threaten the US with retaliatory trade measures (October 13, 2005). This sounds remarkably like some aspects of Jack Layton's position. Good for Harper for periodically showing that he has a little backbone even if it does require that he mimics the position of other parties.

If Harper were to position himself to the left of the Liberals, he might actually pick up a few votes instead of turning off those to the left with his socially conservative positions on homosexuals and marijuana. His anti-SSM and anti-decriminalization policies aren't likely to extract a single vote from those to the left of CPC.

[Montgomery Burns]

Norman Chateau...regarding your decriminalization of pot and SSM remarks, I'm not so sure that you are right about that. Perhaps on the decriminaliztion of pot, but the majority of Canadians do not support the social re-engineering by changing the 2000 year definition of marriage.

Only Quebec and BC appear to be in favor of it.

This poll says the same thing; only Quebec and BC support changing the 2000 year definition of marriage.

This poll is ambiguous.

This poll gives the edge to supporting SSM.

This poll says that Canadians are opposed to gay marriage:

February 2, 2005

Canadians are pro-gay rights and anti-gay marriage. They believe that the protection of gay rights is long overdue while traditional legal definitions of marriage as one man, one women should nonetheless be left unchanged or possibly supplemented by a civil union provision for gays.

An overwhelming majority of the public favours resolution of the issue by national referendum rather than by a vote in Parliament.

I like that last sentence. I find it sad that Americans get to have referendums on gay marriage, while Canadians do not.

More:

The Liberal and NDP electorates are divided on the issue but the Conservative electorate is almost unanimous in its opposition to gay marriage;

Among voters who are passionate on the issue—take firm positions or say that same-sex marriage is an important issue for government to address—those who oppose gay marriage are far more numerous than those who favour it;

The proportion of the electorate opposed to gay marriage is larger than the Conservative share of the vote;

A large majority, including most Liberals, favours resolving the marriage issue by referendum, a traditional Alliance/Conservative party form of deliberation; and

Normally Liberal-voting immigrants tend to embrace the Conservative party position on the issue.

Yikes. That makes me worry that if the Liberals and NDP supported the traditional definiition of marriage, they might steal some of the moderate voters from the CP.

I think that the traditional definition of marriage should stand - and I think that a referendum would agree with my stance - but it is not a huge deal to me. The most important thing to me in this election is reducing the far-too-high amount of taxes we pay.

When it comes to important/radical social re-engineering like changing the definition of marriage, I, and it appears most Canadians, believe this should be put to a referendum.

Let's put this to a referendum, even though that would be *gasp* "American-like".

[shoop]

Ibbitson is easily one of the most well known right of centre columnists in Canadian media. The fact that you haven't *heard* of him goes to show what a narrow spectrum of available sources you get your information from.

Typical of the loonie right. Attack the source instead of the argument. That is the second offensive writing by Steyn I have taken fault with. In both cases you resorted to a personal attack, while deflecting attention away from Steyn's ignorance.

Have fun in your hovel pal...

I will reserve judgement since I have barely heard of Ibbitson and Gunther and don't recall reading any of their op-eds - which is odd since I visit many rightwing blogs,

Butler is a huge supporter of Al Muhajiroun, a radical group that has called for a British Islamic state. 

If you are going to deride one of the best conservative columnists in the world as vile, childish, and embarrassing--you're going to have to do a helluva lot better than linking to pro-Islamic sites that champion radical organizations and hav terrorists on their editorial board.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Norman Chateau...regarding your decriminalization of pot and SSM remarks, I'm not so sure that you are right about that.  Perhaps on the decriminaliztion of pot, but the majority of Canadians do not support the social re-engineering by changing the 2000 year definition of marriage.

Only Quebec and BC appear to be in favor of it.

This poll says the same thing; only Quebec and BC support changing the 2000 year definition of marriage.

This poll is ambiguous.

This poll gives the edge to supporting SSM.

This poll says that Canadians are opposed to gay marriage:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's the latest Canadian poll I could find. It's from July, 2005. It indicates that 55% of Canadians want Bill C-38 to stand and 39% want it repealed. Sure 55% is less than the 69% who favour decriminalization of marijuana but it's further evidence that Stephen Harper is out of step with the majority of Canadians.

Here's the July poll:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...tem/itemID/8147

[fellowtraveller]

The columnist you are referring to is Lorne Gunter, not Lorne Gunther.

He is pretty much the sole centrist columnist found in the Can West empire, the 'balance' against the wide array of Liberal, left columnists and editors.

[Montgomery Burns]

shoop:

Ibbitson is easily one of the most well known right of centre columnists in Canadian media. The fact that you haven't *heard* of him goes to show what a narrow spectrum of available sources you get your information from.

What a crock. Ibbitson is a centrist. He writes for the Globe and Mail and I could only find one reference to him on the Canadian conservative sites I frequent.

Typical brainwashed Canadian who, like the Europeans, considers a centrist a rightwinger. No wonder you call Steyn, the Western Standard, Fox News, and the WashTimes vile, childish, and embarrassing.

Enjoy your Globe and Mail, buddy.

Typical of the loonie right. Attack the source instead of the argument. That is the second offensive writing by Steyn I have taken fault with. In both cases you resorted to a personal attack, while deflecting attention away from Steyn's ignorance.

Have fun in your hovel pal...

Typical of the loony left. I was always suspicious of you. You link to a website that has a convicted terrorist sitting on its editorial board, link to an op-ed by a big supporter of the radical Al Muhajiroun group who claims that John Muhammed was not a Muslim fundamentalist, an op-ed writere who writes for radical sites like antiwar.com, Al Jazeera, and Islamonline.net.

John Muhammed was anti-Semitic and was a member of the Nation of Islam, ffs!

Then you link to "other gems"--op-eds by the loony John Quiggin.

You have offered no proof about Steyn (except you "remember" him saying "jap" in 1999, but offer no proof).

You keep on getting your info from pro-jihad sites and you keep on badmouthing Mark Steyn (even the highly partisan MediaMatters has only 1 reference to Mark Steyn) by calling him ignorant, and I will continue to laugh at your ludicrous claims.

You are no conservative/rightwinger. Joe Clark was more rightwing than you.

[kimmy]

Harper has no personality.  Remember when Mulroney stood up in the debate and said (paraphrase): "you sir (turner), have no monopoly on patriotism!  i grew up in this country, I come from a CANADIAN family...etc"

That's what Harper needs:  some backbone!

Enough of the Libs taking Canadian nationalism as their own rallying cry.

I honestly think Harper's problem is that he tends to think a lot. Ask most politicians whether they love Canada, and their analysis of the question is "the people want to hear me say I love Canada," and react according. Ask Harper if he loves Canada, his reaction is to assume he's being asked to address underlying issues like what he wants to change, how he would fight separatism and regionalism, what's wrong with government, and so on.

I think most grown-ups would be a little embarrassed to be standing on a podium shouting "I LOVE CANADA!!!" But the thing with Martin is that he understands that there's a segment of the population (kids, Molson-drinkers, and dumb-guys, most likely) that considers this a rivetting revelation. Martin, as a professional politician, can put aside his feelings of embarrassment at doing something stupid so that he can reach out to those young, dumb-guy, and Molson-buying voters. Harper, on the otherhand, like most grown men, would just feel stupid and embarrassed standing on a podium shouting "I LOVE CANADA!!!" And really, who can blame him. But that's the difference between a politician and a normal person. A politician is somebody who can put aside his embarrassment at acting like an idiot if it gives him the chance to appeal to dumb-guy voters.

-k

[kimmy]

What a crock.  Ibbitson is a centrist.  He writes for the Globe and Mail and I could only find one reference to him on the Canadian conservative sites I frequent.

Typical brainwashed Canadian who, like the Europeans, considers a centrist a rightwinger.  No wonder you call Steyn, the Western Standard, Fox News, and the WashTimes vile, childish, and embarrassing.

Enjoy your Globe and Mail, buddy. 

I never really considered myself a right winger before I arrived here, but everybody else on the forum seems to think I am. I doubt I'd qualify as being "from the right" in your opinion, but whatever.

A reason that I (as well as shoop and others, I assume) like to use "mainstream" media sources in these discussions is that it eliminates an issue of contention right away. If I'm debating with someone and I reach for a media source that they're skeptical of, they'll tend to scoff at the information I'm presenting. But if I offer a media source that they accept, they have to confront the information rather than dismissing the source.

Backing up your claims with hard facts can help your argument. News stories beat opinion columns. News stories that can be verified from a number of national media sources beat single-source items from local outlets or blogs. Hard facts, when they're available, beat pretty much everything. A link to the text of Bill C-250 beats someone's claims of what's in Bill C-250 or a news-article summary of debate on Bill C-250.

If I'm discussing something in a thread and I link to an article from CBC, it doesn't mean I'm a CBC fan. I do it because I can move the discussion forward by posting information from a source that the person I'm writing to will accept. If I was writing to you, I'd link to the National Post before the Globe'n'Mail or Toronto Star, but if I was writing for a general audience on this board, I'd go with the G'n'M or Torstar because the people most likely to disagree with me are people who most likely accept the G'n'M and Torstar as good sources.

-k

[CoachCartman]

Here you go Norm........nice and recent

CNEWS

OTTAWA - More than half of Canadian voters back Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's call for a free Commons vote on same-sex marriage, according to a new Leger Marketing/Sun Media poll.

The poll of 2,013 Canadians conducted from Dec. 9-13 found that 55% agreed the issue should be decided by parliamentarians.

Poll has other things in it too.........

[canuckcat]

Here you go Norm........nice and recent

CNEWS

OTTAWA - More than half of Canadian voters back Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's call for a free Commons vote on same-sex marriage, according to a new Leger Marketing/Sun Media poll.

The poll of 2,013 Canadians conducted from Dec. 9-13 found that 55% agreed the issue should be decided by parliamentarians.

Poll has other things in it too.........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Consider that some Canadians may have been confused as to the meaning of the question...

same-sex marriage could have been misunderstood as getting the same from the wife as usual... after the hockey game...

sorry!

-------------

[The Honest Politician]

I honestly think Harper's problem is that he tends to think a lot.  Ask most politicians whether they love Canada, and their analysis of the question is "the people want to hear me say I love Canada," and react according.  Ask Harper if he loves Canada, his reaction is to assume he's being asked to address underlying issues like what he wants to change, how he would fight separatism and regionalism, what's wrong with government, and so on.

I think most grown-ups would be a little embarrassed to be standing on a podium shouting "I LOVE CANADA!!!"  But the thing with Martin is that he understands that there's a segment of the population (kids, Molson-drinkers, and dumb-guys, most likely) that considers this a rivetting revelation.  Martin, as a professional politician, can put aside his feelings of embarrassment at doing something stupid so that he can reach out to those young, dumb-guy, and Molson-buying voters.  Harper, on the otherhand, like most grown men, would just feel stupid and embarrassed standing on a podium shouting "I LOVE CANADA!!!" And really, who can blame him. But that's the difference between a politician and a normal person.  A politician is somebody who can put aside his embarrassment at acting like an idiot if it gives him the chance to appeal to dumb-guy voters.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I am a dumb-guy because I want or like to hear my Prime minister say he loves Canada. I love Canada. It's the greatest country on earth, for a multitude of reasons. It's not hard to say, I love Canada, so what's up with Harper? Does he not love this country? Why not ? As you suggested when asked if he loved Canada maybe all he could think about was what was wrong with it, in his oppinion, and how he will change everthing when he is in power. So either he doesn't love Canada, because of all the faults he sees in the country, or he was too DUMB to just tell the voters what they want to hear. Either way he blew another opportuntiy to shed some of his "evil, hidden agenda, americanize everything" reputation that the Liberals have fed Canadians for the last few years.

I like some of the Conservatives policies, and combined with the Liberal corruption I would probably vote for them. But Harper is not the man I want to represent me internationally, or direct policy for this country. Get Peter off the farm and go get a majority Conservative Govt.

I love Canada and so should my Prime Minister.

I LOVE CANADA I LOVE CANADA I LOVE CANADA I LOVE CANADA I LOVE CANADA I LOVE CANADA, it's really not that hard Stephen. Now you try it.

[shoop]

If Harper would have screamed "I Love Canada" (a la Paul Martin) would that have changed your opinion of him. Of would you have decided he wasn't the person you wanted to represent you internationally because he wasn't professional enough?

Is his reasoned, principled approach to dealing with the US not as statesmanlike as Martin's cheap electioneering that hurts the country in favour of scoring political points?

I like some of the Conservatives policies, and combined with the Liberal corruption I would probably vote for them. But Harper is not the man I want to represent me internationally, or direct policy for this country.  Get Peter off the farm and go get a majority Conservative Govt.

I love Canada and so should my Prime Minister.

I LOVE CANADA I LOVE CANADA I LOVE CANADA I LOVE CANADA I LOVE CANADA I LOVE CANADA, it's really not that hard Stephen. Now you try it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[scribblet]

If Harper had wrapped himself in the flag and screamed I Love Canada or whatever, he would have been accused of being too American and too nationalistic.

Same-sex vote backed

A poll finds 55 per cent of Canadians favour a Commons free vote on the marriage issue.

By KATE DUBINSKI, FREE PRESS REPORTER

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/...355597-sun.html

The smoldering same-sex marriage issue was decided in a Commons vote in June, but a Leger/Sun Media poll shows the majority of Canadians consider the issue far from dead.

More than half the 2,013 adults surveyed in the poll -- 55 per cent -- said they favour a free vote on the divisive issue, as Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has promised.

The issue is especially critical in Southwestern Ontario, often cited as the province's bible belt, where seven out of 10 MPs voted in June against changing the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.

Three area Liberals, three Tories and Independent Pat O'Brien voted against the controversial legislation.

Leger Marketing chief executive Jean-Marc Leger said the poll shows voters aren't ready to put the issue to rest.

"This debate has not ended," he said.

[Argus]

Besides lying, the lazy media often are guilty of omission.  For example, I've not come across a single story in the mainstream media during the campaign about Harper's opposition to including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation. 

Nor did they mention Martin's glowing endorsement of middle aged men who like to have sex with teenage boys, and that he only wishes he had more of them in his cabinet.

[BubberMiley]

What are you talking about? Do you have pictures?

[sharkman]

I'm pretty sure the MSM is burying that poll which shows 55% of Canadians favour same sex marriage. Some of them are scoundrels and worse than pimps, only showing what they want Canadians to see/think.

Martin gets a free pass on many topics, this being one of them.

[southerncomfort]

I'm pretty sure the MSM is burying that poll which shows 55% of Canadians favour same sex marriage.  Some of them are scoundrels and worse than pimps, only showing what they want Canadians to see/think.

Martin gets a free pass on many topics, this being one of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course they are burying it, they don't want the truth out there at all.

[err]

Besides lying, the lazy media often are guilty of omission.  For example, I've not come across a single story in the mainstream media during the campaign about Harper's opposition to including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation. 

Nor did they mention Martin's glowing endorsement of middle aged men who like to have sex with teenage boys, and that he only wishes he had more of them in his cabinet.

You'll have to explain this one... because it would appear to be completely unfounded and libellous....

You Child Porn Crusaders can't seem to let up on this kind of topic... and don't appear to care to present any facts to back up your allegations.....

[hiti]

Here's another example from today's star.

In an article talking about Harper's changing direction.

Experts in Canada-U.S. relations say Harper has clearly flip-flopped from his position at the outset of the war. However, there were signs in the last 18 months he had softened his position. He has publicly stated that supporting the U.S. war is not a popular position and that it would stretch Canada's military too thin.

Yet no 'expert' is quoted or referred to. Is it generally accepted journalistic practice to refer to 'expert' opinion without actually quoting any...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard those words fall right out of Harper's mouth. Sorry the media just reported what he said.

[The Honest Politician]

If Harper would have screamed "I Love Canada" (a la Paul Martin) would that have changed your opinion of him. Of would you have decided he wasn't the person you wanted to represent you internationally because he wasn't professional enough?

Is his reasoned, principled approach to dealing with the US not as statesmanlike as Martin's cheap electioneering that hurts the country in favour of scoring political points?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When asked if he loved Canada all he had to say was "YES". Case closed. The fact he didn't shows he is an idiot. As a leader of a political party, you had better love your country. And you had better make sure everybody else knows you love your country. Because if you aren't in politics for the love of your country and the desire to make it better, then you must be in politics for your own personal agenda. And from what I know about Harper, the last thing I want is for him to pursue a personal agenda.

The bottom line is he screwed up. A simple "Yes" would have been great. "Of course I love Canada." would have been even better. His best bet would have been something along the lines of: " I love this country, but the current govt. is slowly destroying it. And Canadians need to elect me Prime Minister to make sure this country is put back on track."

Anything would have been better than avoiding saying he loves Canada. But he did what he did and is an idiot for doing it. That is why I don't want him representing me internationally. He obviously has trouble thinking on his feet. I don't know what kind of brain fart he had when he was asked the question, but I sure as hell don't want him having another when dealing with the future of our country internationally.

He couldn't say he loves his country, I just can't fathom that. Even the Block leader had to admit he loved Canada. And they want to leave! It is a stupid thing to possibly cost someone an election but all he had to say was "Yes".

Stephen Harper himself is the main reason I won't support the Conservatives.

[sharkman]

Look, 'honest', your opinion about the I love Canada question only shows how little you like Harper. If Martin had been asked that question instead and responded the same way Harper did, you'd be fine with it. So you hate Harper, big deal.

[The Honest Politician]

Look, 'honest', your opinion about the I love Canada question only shows how little you like Harper.  If Martin had been asked that question instead and responded the same way Harper did, you'd be fine with it.  So you hate Harper, big deal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everytime you are shown other than what you think, it is always something personal, between Harper or the CPC and the poster. Come on, what's with that?

All he had to say was "Yes", it is not a big deal. The fact he was stupid enough to not say it, even if it was just to please the beer guzzling knuckle draggers, us patriots where referred to as earlier, shows a lack of respect for this country and its citizens as a whole.

If Martin had refused to say he loved Canada I would be raking his arse over the coals too.

I LOVE CANADA!!! I LOVE CANADA!!! I LOVE CANADA!!!

[Montgomery Burns]

Norman Chateau...regarding your decriminalization of pot and SSM remarks, I'm not so sure that you are right about that.  Perhaps on the decriminaliztion of pot, but the majority of Canadians do not support the social re-engineering by changing the 2000 year definition of marriage.

Only Quebec and BC appear to be in favor of it.

This poll says the same thing; only Quebec and BC support changing the 2000 year definition of marriage.

This poll is ambiguous.

This poll gives the edge to supporting SSM.

This poll says that Canadians are opposed to gay marriage:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's the latest Canadian poll I could find. It's from July, 2005. It indicates that 55% of Canadians want Bill C-38 to stand and 39% want it repealed. Sure 55% is less than the 69% who favour decriminalization of marijuana but it's further evidence that Stephen Harper is out of step with the majority of Canadians.

Here's the July poll:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...tem/itemID/8147

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would like to see this put to a referendum. Would you?

[scribblet]

Norman Chateau...regarding your decriminalization of pot and SSM remarks, I'm not so sure that you are right about that.  Perhaps on the decriminaliztion of pot, but the majority of Canadians do not support the social re-engineering by changing the 2000 year definition of marriage.

Only Quebec and BC appear to be in favor of it.

This poll says the same thing; only Quebec and BC support changing the 2000 year definition of marriage.

This poll is ambiguous.

This poll gives the edge to supporting SSM.

This poll says that Canadians are opposed to gay marriage:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's the latest Canadian poll I could find. It's from July, 2005. It indicates that 55% of Canadians want Bill C-38 to stand and 39% want it repealed. Sure 55% is less than the 69% who favour decriminalization of marijuana but it's further evidence that Stephen Harper is out of step with the majority of Canadians.

Here's the July poll:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...tem/itemID/8147

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would like to see this put to a referendum. Would you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Definitely !!

[normanchateau]

I would like to see this put to a referendum.  Would you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm undecided. On the one hand, I'm confident that my fellow Canadians would not vote to take away the rights of a minority group to marry. So in the end, the referendum would silence the religious conservatives at least for a while.

On the other hand, I can think of two reasons not to have a referendum. First, I don't think a majority should be allowed to vote to take away rights from a minority. Consider the following scenario. In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed in Germany. All of Germany now knew that Jews had been stripped of their civil rights by the German legislature. Suppose Germans were first allowed a referendum on this. If the referendum had passed, would that have made it right? Second, a referendum would be a precedent for many more and it would be difficult to draw the line. I'd want a referendum on the decriminalization of marijuana. Someone else would want a referendum on immigration. Someone else might want a referendum on tax cuts. And so on and so on. We elect MPs who best represent our views and my MP represented my views on SSM.