Why we must prevent Harper from becoming PM

[geoffrey]

Bush and his crew, through their blind arrogance and an incredibly idiotic approach, have made a complete mess of Iraq. They are on the brink of civil war...with severe lack of medical supplies, constant power outages and now it is coming out more now that untold thousands of innocent women and children have died or been maimed by US bombing. We do not see much of the pictures of children with limbs ripped off and 3rd degree burns. On top of that, the Bush administration has put their own citizens in even more danger than they ever were before and have only exacerbated the dangers instead of making their country safer.. That is not just shabby, it is an embarrassment to the people of America and will be for years to come.

There are those in the US who still have their head stuck in the sand.... long held beliefs they hold are so very so hard to let go of, that in fact it is almost impossible for some people to even accept that the US is in trouble because of all this insanity. There are radio stations with these raving fanatics running 24/7. Many of us have friends or relatives in the US... for their sake, I hope that someone has the courage soon to stand up to the Bush administration and turn things around.

It shows that the wrong leader can be absolutely disasterous. While not suggesting for a millisecond that Harper is the same as Bush... there are still very serious concerns about the choices he has made and consequently serious concerns about what kind of mess he could potentially get us into.

Indeed it has. Hundreds of millions of Eastern Europeans liberated, in great part, by Ronald Reagan. Over 50 million Muslims recently liberated, in great part, by President Bush.

Not too shabby.

You know those lefties don't believe freedom is important, they'd rather see dictatorships that occasionally feed their people in order to raise armies or what not.

This is a Canadian politics forum, and all you've ever been able to say is about Bush. Then you throw in a little Harper is somewhat kinda the same, and be careful of the mess Harper will get us into.

What do you propose as an alternative to Harper, because there really isn't one in Canada right now?

[kimmy]

kimmy, you sound just like those Liberals who say things like "Stephen Harper has a secret agenda," but then can't elaborate. Ooooh, Paul Martin will destroy the country. That may fly in the Hanna Legion, but really, let's try to keep this on an adult level.

Another re-election of Martin will be the straw that breaks the camel's back in Quebec.

Sending Martin back for another term will doom Jean Charest when he has to go back to the polls in a year or so. Quebec voters will be so mad that the federal Liberals were returned to power that they'll elect the PQ in a landslide of epic proportions. When the PQ puts their referendum on the table, do you think having the federal Liberals there to make the case for federalism is going to help or hurt the federalist chances? Unless you're delusional, you know the answer to that question.

So yes, I do think that if Paul Martin Jr and his party are returned to power, this country is headed for a crisis that we'll never fully recover from.

-k

[Guest eureka]

kimmy. those problems of the "deals" come from what I have been trying to wake people up to. They are a consequence of a too weak central government. They are a consequence of the necessity of the central government needing provincial agreement to virtually everything it wants to do domestically.

As I have said repeatedly, there is no other federation in the world that is so hamstrung. Yet you think Harper is a solution!

I would, btw, expect better from you than to think that I want Martin and the Liberals. He is just a far better choice than the alternative.

[kimmy]

kimmy. those problems of the "deals" come from what I have been trying to wake people up to. They are a consequence of a too weak central government. They are a consequence of the necessity of the central government needing provincial agreement to virtually everything it wants to do domestically.

As I have said repeatedly, there is no other federation in the world that is so hamstrung. Yet you think Harper is a solution!

I would, btw, expect better from you than to think that I want Martin and the Liberals. He is just a far better choice than the alternative.

Harper will broaden the powers of the provinces through non-interference and by broadening their fiscal abilities.

Martin will broaden the powers of the provinces by haphazardly giving the premiers whatever they want as they rush to his door with their demands, emboldened by the fact that Martin has no fortitude and no principles at all.

I'm not convinced at all that Martin is a better alternative, even on just this issue. I don't see how another term of the weakest Prime Minister we've ever had will make our central government stronger.

-k

[Guest eureka]

kimmy, I have seen scores of elections at all levels. I have always seen elections as competing ideas for the benefit of country or community. Competing philosophies: even Mike Harris in Ontario thought he was improving his Province.

That is, until this one!

This election is about the attempted seizure of power by someone who has throughout his carer dedicated himself to the destruction of the country. Someone who I am increasingly certain is insane.

The naivete that is so obvious on these forums is really sad from people who are intelligent and informed but are swept away by the propaganda.

[August1991]

Paul Martin is the biggest disappointment since the Crucifixion.

-k

WTF?

[sage]

Eureka, you start by observing the lack of vision in this campaign, and the only thing you can add to the debate is to say that Harper's evil?

Where's Martin's vision? Does Paul Martin plan anything past the next 5 minute interval?

[cybercoma]

Eureka, you start by observing the lack of vision in this campaign, and the only thing you can add to the debate is to say that Harper's evil?

Where's Martin's vision? Does Paul Martin plan anything past the next 5 minute interval?

His reasons are that he believes the provinces should be stripped of their power and everything should be handed over to the federal level. Ottawa knows what's best for all Canadians and as such should make the decisions for everyone.

[sage]

I suppose you're right Cybercoma.

A fantastic way to ensure that the St. Lawrence corridor maintains its status as the country's despot.

[Argus]

kimmy, I have seen scores of elections at all levels. I have always seen elections as competing ideas for the benefit of country or community. Competing philosophies: even Mike Harris in Ontario thought he was improving his Province.

That is, until this one!

This election is about the attempted seizure of power by someone who has throughout his carer dedicated himself to the destruction of the country. Someone who I am increasingly certain is insane.

Funny, some of us think you've kind of lost your marbles, too.

[Guest eureka]

Your replies illustrate my points.

[sage]

Eureka, what point was it exactly that you were trying to make? Somebody trying to "seize" power? You make the ascension of conservative policies to be the equivalent of the apocalypse. I hope you're speaking in hyperbole.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the sun will rise tomorrow. It may just be a little brighter for those of us in the 21st century.

[Murray B.]

I'm confused.

Okay so if I vote for Harper then it is a vote for Bush. This is clear but what about the other parties.

Is voting NDP that same as voting for Nader or would that need to be the Green Party?

How about the Liberals? Is a vote for them the same as voting for Kerry or is it the same as Gore? How about Hillary? Who is the same as voting for Hillary?

And what about Bill Clinton, is anybody the same as voting for him?

I'm so confused.

P.S. Which one is same as voting for Jon Stewart because I really like his show and I trust him. Can we write in candidates in Canada. JON FOR PM! Hooray... We're number 1, We're number 1 ... GO JON GO!

[Wilber]

I'm confused.

Okay so if I vote for Harper then it is a vote for Bush. This is clear but what about the other parties.

Is voting NDP that same as voting for Nader or would that need to be the Green Party?

How about the Liberals? Is a vote for them the same as voting for Kerry or is it the same as Gore? How about Hillary? Who is the same as voting for Hillary?

And what about Bill Clinton, is anybody the same as voting for him?

I'm so confused.

P.S. Which one is same as voting for Jon Stewart because I really like his show and I trust him. Can we write in candidates in Canada. JON FOR PM! Hooray... We're number 1, We're number 1 ... GO JON GO!

I'd vote for Murray. But who is he the same as.

[Murray B.]

I'd vote for Murray. But who is he the same as.

Are you joking? Look, I as much said I admired Jon which makes voting for me the same as voting for him. This is simple but what if someone really wants Hillary to win.

This is not so easy since the U.S. often discriminates against people who are differently located. Canada is part of North America too, you know. Why should a little thing like citizenship and a border stop me from voting for president? I Don't care about the congressors or senatemen but I do want to vote for president.

Its too late now and I'm still confused. The voting is done and still don't know which vote was a vote for Hillary.

So, does Harper's minority give George Bush another half term or how do they count it down there?

[Wilber]

I'd vote for Murray. But who is he the same as.

Are you joking? Look, I as much said I admired Jon which makes voting for me the same as voting for him. This is simple but what if someone really wants Hillary to win.

This is not so easy since the U.S. often discriminates against people who are differently located. Canada is part of North America too, you know. Why should a little thing like citizenship and a border stop me from voting for president? I Don't care about the congressors or senatemen but I do want to vote for president.

Its too late now and I'm still confused. The voting is done and still don't know which vote was a vote for Hillary.

So, does Harper's minority give George Bush another half term or how do they count it down there?

So if Jon ran and won would that make you Prime Minister? If you were born in the US maybe you could be Prime Minister and President at the same time, or could he be both?

I was thinking a vote for Belinda might be like a vote for Hillary but Hillary has always known which side she was on so I can't help you.

If Hillary wins does that mean Harper would have to step down? Would he be allowed to stay if McCain or Rice wins?

You're right, this is confusing.

I think a half term for a minority sounds reasonable. Canadians spend so much time opining on US politics, of course we should have a vote.

[Murray B.]

So if Jon ran and won would that make you Prime Minister? If you were born in the US maybe you could be Prime Minister and President at the same time, or could he be both?

I was thinking a vote for Belinda might be like a vote for Hillary but Hillary has always known which side she was on so I can't help you.

If Hillary wins does that mean Harper would have to step down? Would he be allowed to stay if McCain or Rice wins?

You're right, this is confusing.

I think a half term for a minority sounds reasonable. Canadians spend so much time opining on US politics, of course we should have a vote.

All right, I'll assume that you really want to know and are not just trying to cause trouble.

If Jon were President and I was running for PM then a vote for me would be a vote for him. Only through the miracle of historical revision could I be born in the U.S. but good revisionists are easy to find. Even so, I must decline the nomination (which means that I am actually running for President). No, actually, forget it, I really don't want the job. What I want to do is relax and have a good time. Being Commander in Chief of a superpower will allow me to do neither. What I need to do is get appointed (do you hear me Mr. Harper) to the Canadian Senate. Jon could and can be the President Minister of ... naw, he is going into the Senate just like me.

Now you tell me how to vote for Hillary after the election is done. What good is this information now. Also I think your comments are unfair and discriminatory. Just because her side is the other side is no reason to make fun of her. It's not like she believed anything she was saying anyway. She is an actress reading from a different script, that is all.

If Hillary wins then there has to be a vote of non-confidence and Harper has to step down if he loses. If he wins then I'm pretty sure that Hillary becomes a lame duck and has to leave within two years. Until then she has to stay in Peachmen NT just like Nixon.

No it is not a half term for Harper, it is an additional half term for Bush. Remember, a vote for Harper is a vote for Bush. Weren't you paying attention?

Now that I have explained it all I have a headache and have to go home.

Until next time remember that US spells "us" as in "we" so of course we ought to get to vote in the States.

[Wilber]

So if Jon ran and won would that make you Prime Minister? If you were born in the US maybe you could be Prime Minister and President at the same time, or could he be both?

I was thinking a vote for Belinda might be like a vote for Hillary but Hillary has always known which side she was on so I can't help you.

If Hillary wins does that mean Harper would have to step down? Would he be allowed to stay if McCain or Rice wins?

You're right, this is confusing.

I think a half term for a minority sounds reasonable. Canadians spend so much time opining on US politics, of course we should have a vote.

All right, I'll assume that you really want to know and are not just trying to cause trouble.

If Jon were President and I was running for PM then a vote for me would be a vote for him. Only through the miracle of historical revision could I be born in the U.S. but good revisionists are easy to find. Even so, I must decline the nomination (which means that I am actually running for President). No, actually, forget it, I really don't want the job. What I want to do is relax and have a good time. Being Commander in Chief of a superpower will allow me to do neither. What I need to do is get appointed (do you hear me Mr. Harper) to the Canadian Senate. Jon could and can be the President Minister of ... naw, he is going into the Senate just like me.

Now you tell me how to vote for Hillary after the election is done. What good is this information now. Also I think your comments are unfair and discriminatory. Just because her side is the other side is no reason to make fun of her. It's not like she believed anything she was saying anyway. She is an actress reading from a different script, that is all.

If Hillary wins then there has to be a vote of non-confidence and Harper has to step down if he loses. If he wins then I'm pretty sure that Hillary becomes a lame duck and has to leave within two years. Until then she has to stay in Peachmen NT just like Nixon.

No it is not a half term for Harper, it is an additional half term for Bush. Remember, a vote for Harper is a vote for Bush. Weren't you paying attention?

Now that I have explained it all I have a headache and have to go home.

Until next time remember that US spells "us" as in "we" so of course we ought to get to vote in the States.

I got the impression that Harper is not really in favour of the PM appointing Senators so if you and Jon both become Senators, does that mean we get an elected Senate or does it mean the President will now appoint Senators?

I was paying attention. I realize you meant a minority for Harper meant a half term for Bush but Bush can't run again so would it mean a half term for McCain/Rice? Would a win for McCain/Rice mean a majority for Harper? After all, if the US means us, Americans should get to vote in Canada as well.

[Murray B.]

I got the impression that Harper is not really in favour of the PM appointing Senators so if you and Jon both become Senators, does that mean we get an elected Senate or does it mean the President will now appoint Senators?

I was paying attention. I realize you meant a minority for Harper meant a half term for Bush but Bush can't run again so would it mean a half term for McCain/Rice? Would a win for McCain/Rice mean a majority for Harper? After all, if the US means us, Americans should get to vote in Canada as well.

You are right, that is what Mr. Harper said, but I am counting on it being a rhetorical statement. Maybe he could appoint Jon and I, and then reform the Senate. That way everybody will be happy.

The President cannot appoint senators because the Liberals did not win. If they do at some time in the future then I think the President can make all the patronage appointments he wants to the Senate.

Yes, it appears that you are indeed paying attention. I'm not exactly sure how the transfer works since I got the information from the Liberals but it is definitely a vote for Bush and not McCain. Therefore I conclude it must be some kind of term extension and not a brand new term. The final word on this, however, lies with the Liberals and not I.

Whether a McCain/Rice win would mean a Canadian majority depends, I think, on the electoral college results. Of course that would depend on what the U.S. equivalent of the Liberal party says. This could be the Democrats but I'm not completely sure which party currently defines U.S. culture.

Let's see if I can derive it from first principles. The Liberals say that a true Canadian must be anti-American so it follows that a true American must be anti-Canadian. Omigawd, this sounds more like the Republicans are the sole definers of U.S. culture. If this is true then Liberal must also equal Republican and a vote for Martin must also be a vote for George W. Bush. It follows from this that Republican = Liberal + Conservative - Democrat. Okay, this proves that I have had a stroke of genius or gone temporarily insane. I can't really say which is true right now because my judgement is most likely impaired. So, lets move on.

As far as voting in a Canadian election, citizenship is only a theoretical requirement. In actual fact anyone can vote in a Canadian election as long as they can show some I.D. with an address. Citizenship is not required. Non-residents would need to purchase a 3rd party driver's license but even that is not too difficult.

Since legions of non-North American foreigners have always voted in Candian elections it wouldn't bother me a bit if the (U.S. of) Americans voted here too. At least all of us North Americans originate on the same continent and have a similar cultural mix. That can't be said about some gang member that just got off the boat and wants to bring more of his buddies over.

We are sure getting this thing figured to pieces, Eh?