Why we must prevent Harper from becoming PM

[Canuck E Stan]

I suppose that you too have difficulty with comprehension, Scriblett.

Harper insinuated that Martin is evading taxes on CSL when Harper knows that he is not. I can excuse the ignorance shown by a few on these forums who seized on this earlier since they could not have been expected to know they were being lied to.

I cannot excuse this in Harper and I repeat that it is the lowest bit of sleaze that I have heard of in any political campaign that I ahve followed.

Eureka,

If only you had been born in this country,you would truly understand being Canadian.

Then stop making attacks, scriblett, and try discussion. I have not seen much of that from you. Incidentally, for length of time in Canada, my wife is said to be descended from the first white child born in North America. I think, too, your snide remark about my not understanding Canadians is somewhat misplaced and typical of the defensive parochialism of the Conservative.

Then I guess attacks are in the eye of the beholder. Mature debate also consists of not whining about being attacked. Take a look at Cyerbercoma who attacks all the time and doesn't realise how foolish his attacks are.

What you call attacks are a normal debating tactic.

Eureka,

It's amazing how defensive you and Honest got when someone questioned your understanding of Canada.

I really don't question your belief in this country,because this country is big enough for everyone,regardless of how they think.

But I do get upset when you feel it's okay for Martin to question Harper's patriotism and slam Harper when he questions Martin.

We are all Canadians,born here or not and we all deeply care about this country and no one should question an individual's love of this country,especially in the political arena.

Martin was stupid to try and make it an issue.

[Biblio Bibuli]

this country is big enough for everyone, regardless of how they think.

Did you hear that Osama? Saddam? Adolf?

COME ON DOWN!!!

[Slim MacSquinty]

this country is big enough for everyone, regardless of how they think.

Did you hear that Osama? Saddam? Adolf?

COME ON DOWN!!!

Why not, they can vote from jail!

[Guest eureka]

I am not defensive about it, Canuck. I too can get very upset, though. I am upset by the apathy that cannot understand that Harper is not patriotic at all. He has no feeling for country or its people. Harper is one of those who can see in nothing but economic terms.

Thus his desire to break up the country into what he thinks - wrongly - will be efficient economic units.

[emailforcanada]

The problem with Harper is that he plays the most obvious political games and does so with compete disregard for the effect it has on Canada. Yet - and this is what really turns people off... he claims to be so ethical and pure. If he were smart enough to do it without it being so completely obvious to most of us, then one could at least we coule give him a few marks for being clever .. but the sad fact is that many people see right through it. Besides finger pointing and his dangerous political opportunism ... Harper has made very little contribution t oanything much... Layton did at least focus on accomplishing something while in oppostion. All Haper has been doimg is trying to sieze upon a political opportunity and as per the first post, he has had only negative impact for Canada.

I am not defensive about it, Canuck. I too can get very upset, though. I am upset by the apathy that cannot understand that Harper is not patriotic at all. He has no feeling for country or its people. Harper is one of those who can see in nothing but economic terms.

Thus his desire to break up the country into what he thinks - wrongly - will be efficient economic units.

[justcrowing]

The problem with Harper is that he plays the most obvious political games and does so with compete disregard for the effect it has on Canada. Yet - and this is what really turns people off... he claims to be so ethical and pure. If he were smart enough to do it without it being so completely obvious to most of us, then one could at least we coule give him a few marks for being clever .. but the sad fact is that many people see right through it. Besides finger pointing and his dangerous political opportunism ... Harper has made very little contribution t oanything much... Layton did at least focus on accomplishing something while in oppostion. All Haper has been doimg is trying to sieze upon a political opportunity and as per the first post, he has had only negative impact for Canada.

I am not defensive about it, Canuck. I too can get very upset, though. I am upset by the apathy that cannot understand that Harper is not patriotic at all. He has no feeling for country or its people. Harper is one of those who can see in nothing but economic terms.

Thus his desire to break up the country into what he thinks - wrongly - will be efficient economic units.

I just love the negative effect Harper has on Canada, namely gaining in the polls with full momentum. Go Harper, Go!! Time to send the Liberals to pasture to pay for their sins of theft.

[emailforcanada]

OK we shall see. Hey it's not a hockey game by the way... but good for you for enjoying the fiesty race in any case.

One good thing that I hope we can all agree on is that the Bloc leader came off weak .. I think he may lose votes this time around ... whoever it goes to, that would be a good thing for Canada.

The problem with Harper is that he plays the most obvious political games and does so with compete disregard for the effect it has on Canada. Yet - and this is what really turns people off... he claims to be so ethical and pure. If he were smart enough to do it without it being so completely obvious to most of us, then one could at least we coule give him a few marks for being clever .. but the sad fact is that many people see right through it. Besides finger pointing and his dangerous political opportunism ... Harper has made very little contribution t oanything much... Layton did at least focus on accomplishing something while in oppostion. All Haper has been doimg is trying to sieze upon a political opportunity and as per the first post, he has had only negative impact for Canada.

I am not defensive about it, Canuck. I too can get very upset, though. I am upset by the apathy that cannot understand that Harper is not patriotic at all. He has no feeling for country or its people. Harper is one of those who can see in nothing but economic terms.

Thus his desire to break up the country into what he thinks - wrongly - will be efficient economic units.

I just love the negative effect Harper has on Canada, namely gaining in the polls with full momentum. Go Harper, Go!! Time to send the Liberals to pasture to pay for their sins of theft.

[geoffrey]

OK we shall see. Hey it's not a hockey game by the way... but good for you for enjoying the fiesty race in any case.

One good thing that I hope we can all agree on is that the Bloc leader came off weak .. I think he may lose votes this time around ... whoever it goes to, that would be a good thing for Canada.

The only votes would go to the CPC, who's support is skyrocketing in Quebec. In a post less than an hour previous, you say Harper would only be negative to Canada.

Are you saying the Liberals are gaining support in Quebec (and I'd like to know how anyone could come to this conclusion)? Or are you changing your opinion on Harper? Seriously, I've got to say your arguments are next to impossible to follow.

Also, Quebec folk don't watch the English debate... so its a moot point really.

The problem with Harper is that he plays the most obvious political games and does so with compete disregard for the effect it has on Canada. Yet - and this is what really turns people off... he claims to be so ethical and pure. If he were smart enough to do it without it being so completely obvious to most of us, then one could at least we coule give him a few marks for being clever .. but the sad fact is that many people see right through it. Besides finger pointing and his dangerous political opportunism ... Harper has made very little contribution t oanything much... Layton did at least focus on accomplishing something while in oppostion. All Haper has been doimg is trying to sieze upon a political opportunity and as per the first post, he has had only negative impact for Canada.

[kimmy]

Let's revisit eureka's fury over Harper's mention of CSL.

One good reason not to vote for Harper is that he has no control of his temper or tongue. He has already lost it and degenerated to type.

His attack on Martin over CSL is about as low as any politician can get. It is understandable that some of the conned who post here cannot grasp the situation with CSL even though it is explained. After all, it is a little complocated )not very, though) and their minds must be tired out memorizing the slogans.

There is no excuse for Harper since he knows the reality and claims to understan taxation.

(...)

Harper raised the issue fully knowing that CSL is registered in Canada: flies the Canadian flag; and pays taxes in Canada.

Harper knows that CSL International is an entirely separate entity operating out of New York and doing what every other shipping company in the world does.

It was despicable and any politician who stoops to that kind of smear is unfitted to be even a Page in Parliament.

(...)

Harper insinuated that Martin is evading taxes on CSL when Harper knows that he is not. I can excuse the ignorance shown by a few on these forums who seized on this earlier since they could not have been expected to know they were being lied to.

I cannot excuse this in Harper and I repeat that it is the lowest bit of sleaze that I have heard of in any political campaign that I ahve followed.

That CSL and CSL International are separate entities is mere semantics, as they're both subsidaries of the CSL Group, owned entirely by Martin's family.

That CSL International is, indeed, evading taxation in Canada is freely admitted by CSL itself:

Q10: Why doesn’t CSL International pay income taxes in Canada?

A10: CSL International competes worldwide against international maritime transport companies who are based in countries such as Barbados and are subject to the same level of taxes. CSL International cannot compete in this market unless it is subject to the same cost structure.

(The CSL Group: frequently asked questions.)

To paraphrase, "we register our ships in foreign countries to benefit from lower taxes and fees. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to stay competitive."

So what has Harper said that is so dishonest? The Martin family business does indeed register many of its ships under "flags of convenience" for the sake of paying lower taxes. That may be necessary to compete in the international shipping business, but that doesn't make it any less true that CSL Group does so.

-k

[River_God]

5. With all the internal focus on merging of the ex-Reform /Alliance/ Conservative party, this is really a relatively newly formed party coming out of a great deal of inner turmoil. I believe that there are many caring folks within this new Conservative party that do not at all agree with the direction that Harper and the top aides are taking. We saw witness of at least one member who stood up and made that clear by crossing the floor.

I agree with you 100%.

Last Updated Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:54:28 EST

CBC News

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach lashed out Monday at the leader of her former party, saying she defected because of the threat Stephen Harper posed to national unity.

Stronach should have been more explicit about her evidence.

Harper highjacked the ex-Reform /Alliance/ Conservative party in the same way that Bush's cabal highjacked the US republican party (by stealth, a fortress mentality of non-disclosure, manipulating the media (It’s chilling that Hollinger Corp (National Post etc.) has been Harper’s biggest voice box in Canada, and that Hollinger’s scandal plaugued ex-director Richard Perle is a key Bush puppeteer).

Note that the National Post (Hollinger Corp) is the biggest Harper supporter in Ontario, even though Harper's stated ambition is to create an autonomous Alberta.

Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. The next logical step is to begin building a much more autonomous Alberta. ( Stephen Harper National Post, December 8, 2000)

“Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.” (Stephen Harper Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

Harper's statements are clear to me. It wouldn't even surprise me if Harper is backing the Quebec separatists because he hopes that will help precipitate Alberta's (or nothern Alberta's) separation.

Harper, along with his predecessor Preston Manning, is well known to have found his Roots in the Straussian Calgary School headed by Dr Tom Flanagan.

http://ontario.indymedia.ca/twiki/bin/view...rperFullArticle

Barry Cooper, Flanagan's closet departmental pal, blatantly stated that, "The sooner those guys (Quebec) are out of here the better."

In 1997, Dr Flanagan and Harper made their media debut in the short-lived Next City, arguing coalitions were the only route to conservatives seizing national power. Flanagan and Harper's writing collaboration would last four years.

In Harper, Flanagan finally had his dream candidate to carry the neo-conservative torch: an alter ego whose benign boyish good looks belied the radical agenda they shared. (I personally think that Harper has angry eyes, and a semi-plastic 2-D face. Martin has much deeper humanism in his appearance)

"Stephen has an incredible strategic sense," Cooper says. "It's like playing chess: he can always see five or six moves ahead."

Shadia Drury, a member of the U of C department until 2003, accuses her former colleagues of harbouring a sinister mission. An expert on Leo Strauss, the philosophical father of the neo-conservative movement, Drury paints the Calgary School as a home-grown variation of American Straussians like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Dick Cheney, who share their teacher's deep suspicion of liberal democracy.

General Powell's chief of staff until January 2005, Lawrence Wilkerson, alleged that US policy on Iraq before and after the March 2003 invasion had been hijacked by an alliance between Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, fostered by President George Bush's "detached" attitude to details of post-war planning.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle330218.ece

Wilkerson even accused Vice-President Dick Cheney of creating the climate in which prisoner abuse could flourish, and implied that he might have committed war crimes.

Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/29/wil...w.ap/index.html

The Canadian made documentary "The Corporation" 2004 - 2005, contains a chilling segment where highly decorated US Major General Smedley Butler publicly exposed a plot in the 1950s and 1960s , by major US Corporations, to highjack US democracy and form a de-facto dictatorship in the USA.

Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, a Marine for 33 years, who fought in dozens of wars and was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor. At the time of his death, he was the most highly-decorated Marine in American history.

Butler’s most famous quote was:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

He was also one of the first people to speak about the "military-industrial complex", which Eisenhower made more famous in his farewell address to the nation at the end of his presidency. After retiring from the U.S. Marines in 1931, Butler wrote a book called "War Is A Racket", which you can read here (highly recommended). Amongst other things, he predicted war with Mussolini and Hitler, who at the time were allies of the United States.

General Butler exposed a plot by a group of influential businessmen and politicians' to overthrow the democratically elected government of the United States.

The leaders of the attempted coup were:

• Irenee Du Pont - Right-wing chemical industrialist and founder of the American Liberty League, the organization assigned to execute the plot.

• Grayson Murphy - Director of Goodyear, Bethlehem Steel and a group of J.P. Morgan banks.

• William Doyle - Former state commander of the American Legion and a central plotter of the coup.

• John Davis - Former Democratic presidential candidate and a senior attorney for J.P. Morgan.

• Al Smith - Roosevelt's bitter political foe and codirector of the American Liberty League.

• John J. Raskob - A high-ranking Du Pont officer and a former chairman of the Democratic Party. In later decades, Raskob would become a "Knight of Malta," a Roman Catholic Religious Order with a high percentage of CIA spies, including CIA Directors William Casey, William Colby and John McCone.

• Robert Clark - One of Wall Street's richest bankers and stockbrokers.

• Gerald MacGuire - Bond salesman for Clark, and a former commander of the Connecticut American Legion. MacGuire was the key recruiter to General Butler.

http://texasturkey.us/backup/270.html

It’s possible that the Bush-Cheney-Perle cabal succeeded in doing just this in 2001.

As General Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson suggested, even though most of the people in the US government had gigh integrity, a small group used the preciptous event's of 9/11 to turn once, beloved America, into a country corrupted by unprecedented scandals (Iraq War, Abu Graihb, Patriot Act, Tom Delay, Patriot Act, Diebold Computers, Exit-polls that indicated Democracy had been highjacked).

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle330218.ece

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/29/wil...w.ap/index.html

This same kind of thing could happen to Canada if Harper gets elected.

We should get rid of any touch-creen Diebold voting computers as soon as possible, or at least do extensive exit polls at all these sites.

Voting computers that leave no paper trail are a seroious threat to the checks and balances of Democracy, but their ability to produce fraudent election results might go farther than that.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm

Harper's takeover of the Canadian Alliance was followed by his annexation of Peter MacKay's Tories

Note that following the Reform/Alliance/Conservative merger, Harper wouldn't even talk to Peter Mackay for weeks at a time, even though Makay rushed to register the new party on a Sunday when the electoral office was normally closed..

Nor was MacKay, the only former Progressive Conservative to be snubbed. Key players in the old Tory election apparatus -- including the Ontario team that propelled Mike Harris to power -- never received the expected calls for their services after the merger.

David Orchard, the Saskatchewan farmer whose support had clinched the Tory leadership for MacKay, denounced Harper’s new party as "conceived in betrayal and born in deception."

Veterans of the Reform Party see that snub of the Tories as a rerun of Harper's treatment of party stalwarts, including his former boss Deborah Grey, who bolted the Alliance caucus under Stockwell Day. Even after Harper took over, they found themselves treated as not quite trustworthy and relegated to the back benches

http://ontario.indymedia.ca/twiki/bin/view...rperFullArticle

Paul Martin opened last nights debate by promising to reform our constitution to prevent any future government from abusing its powers, and overriding the rule of law in Canada. This would further protect all future Canadians basic rights to have free speech, freedom of conscience and freedom from abusive discrimination. It would also guarantee that we have an independent media and open debates on all future legislation. I'm sure that this was in large part do to the very real threat Harper poses to Canada.

Harper blames the Martin for alleged corruption, but he himslf is unwilling to open his books.

In last night's debate (Jan 8) Harper said that his party wasn't funded by Conrad Black, but her never said anything about Hollinger. It wouldn't be suprising in Black and Richard Perle still had close allies at Hollinger.

Richard Perle's Cabal could also has infiltrated Harper's "Calgary School", the wellknown think tank that fostered Harper's rise to Power. The Calgary School's neo-conservative agenda may read as if it has been lifted straight from the dusty desk drawers of Ronald Reagan: lower taxes, less federal government, and free markets unfettered by social programs such as medicare that keep citizens from being forced to pull up their own socks. But their arguments also echo the local landscape, where Big Oil sets the tone -- usually from a U.S. head office.

http://ontario.indymedia.ca/twiki/bin/view...rperFullArticle

From a war room that ironically once housed Groupe Action, the ad firm behind the Liberals' sponsorship scandal, Flanagan directed Harper's 2004 election effort that stunned even veteran Parliament Hill reporters with its fortress mentality. "Everything was very tightly held," says one Tory. "It was circle the wagons completely."

Why won't Harper open is books to disclose who has been funding him?

Stephen Harper QUOTES

Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.

Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion.

(what could “some other kind of arrangement” mean in the context of Harper’s fellow Straussian Richard Perle’s quotes.)

Richard Perle QUOTES

If the UN cannot or will not revise its rules in ways that establish beyond question the legality of the measures the United States must take to protect the American people, then we should unashamedly and explicitly reject the jurisdiction of these rules.

We must do our utmost to preserve our British ally's strategic independence from Europe.

We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington.

All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

[Guest eureka]

It is not just semantics, Kimmy. It is not semantics at all. I am tired of trying to get through to people here that every shipping company in the world that operates internationally does the same. Some do not do as CSL does and have their domestic fleets registered domestically. CSL is, and always has been one of the better corporate citizens. CSL would be out of business in a hurry if it did not compete with every one else.

Since you have swung over to the sleaze side on this issue, let's make the argument that Harper would understand - as a self proclaimed tax expert. It is the obligation of every corporation to minimise its expenditures and thuse provide the best returns for its investors. Thus, CSL would be operating according to the time honoured creed of the Capitalists - if it did what it is being accused of.

I have explained in the past about the international situation with respect to shipping. There are some countries that will not enter into an international agreement to not use "Flags of Convenience." Until such an agreement is reached, if ever, there is no other course for any responsible shipping company.

Harper's use of the issue was vile. For the first time, Martin realised that he must answer but did not do so forcefully enough. Harper could have been buried.

[kimmy]

The difference btween CSL and CSL International is indeed semantics, as they're both part of CSL Group and wholly owned by Martin's family. That Harper spoke of "CSL" rather than CSL International or CSL Group specifically is unimportant.

It might well be the case that using flags of convenience is a necessity in the international shipping industry. That does not dispute the truth of anything Harper said. And indeed, neither you nor CSL itself dispute the implication that CSL evades Canadian taxes; you and they defend it as a necessity within the industry. Operating businesses in foreign jurisdictions for reasons of competitiveness is not necessarily unpatriotic, however the implication that it is unpatriotic is often levied by the left against those who would move manufacturing operations to Mexico or call-center operations to Mumbai. The Martin family's use of flags of convenience is an application of the exact same principle.

Back when we were arguing about the Liberal promise to axe the GST in 1993, you argued that it was not unethical, since the Progressive Conservatives had every opportunity to argue that the Liberal plan was not viable. Very well. Paul Martin has every opportunity to argue that using flags of convenience is not unpatriotic. If he wishes to make that argument to the Canadian people, or explain the intricacies of the international shipping industry, he is free to do so. He has every opportunity to confront Harper on this issue if he believes he has been wronged. If his case is as compelling as you believe it is, if this is as damning of Harper as you believe it is, Martin has every opportunity to jump on this with both feet. It is there as an issue for him to seize, if he is willing.

Personally, I don't think that's going to happen. And not because Martin and his strategists are dumb people, but because you're grossly, absurdly wrong in your estimation of how damaging this would be to Harper as a campaign issue. "Harper could have been buried," my ass.

-k

[emailforcanada]

Long thread and time to summarize why we must prevent Harper from becoming the leader of

our fine Country....

His actions have shown that he cares more about getting his party into

power than the best interests of Canada. His choices show that he would

be a very bad leader for Canada and would take our country in the wrong

direction. He has demonstrated a type of political opportunism that is

at the expense of the best interests of Canada's. He points the

finger at others claiming to be pure and ethical. Yet his under his

leadership, his own party's actions show that he is willing to play

just the same political games that he claims others are guilty of.

Here are some examples to support these statements.

1. Back in May 2005 Harper and his team saw an opportunity to get into

power by jumping on the sponsorship scandal. He and his team brought

parliament to a virtual standstill for many days and created more

instability for our country by attempting to topple the Government when

an election had already been announced. Even if he believed that he

would win, this type of instability is very bad for any country and the

world perception of Canada. He failed - and rightly so. This is not

the right way to get into power and a good leader would not have

exacerbated the situation the way he did. It is just one example of the

kind of choices that Harper makes and it shows he cares about his own

party's interest over the well being of Canada. There is no question

that the sponsorship scandal has had a negative impact on public

confidence. Harper's choice however, was to make matters worse at a

time when we needed all parties to do the right thing for Canada. The

right thing would be to do everything possible to maintain political

stability and keep parliamentary business going until the election.

2. Harper pressed very hard to have Canada send troops to Iraq. This

was clear during his statements in questions period at the time. I

would like to see CTV or CBC replay the coverage of those question

period speeches from Harper. He and his spokespeople can try to deny it

but it was very clear that if he had been in power, we would be very

involved in the Iraq mess. Harper showed that he was very keen to have

us follow the Bush administration into Iraq without UN support

regardless of the consequences and this shows the type of poor choices

that Harper can make. Furthermore, even now he is not willing to admit

that it was a mistake. Another sign that he is a bad choice for a

leader.

3. Harper and his party have decided to use GST gimic and poorly

thought out tax schemes to try to convince people to vote for them.

They have clearly put a lot of thought and planning into the election

strategy but what is very worrisome is that they have not fully thought

out or calculated the costs or ramifications to Canada of their

promises. Proof of this is when he said in an interview that he may

'throw in a couple more campaign policies' before the campaign

ends. This indicates that they are whipping up ideas to lure voters.

Major policies should be well thought out and thoroughly analyzed...

not made up on the fly and thrown in for good measure to try and get

elected.

4. With all the internal focus on merging of the ex-Reform /Alliance/

Conservative party, this is really a relatively newly formed party

coming out of a great deal of inner turmoil. I believe that there are

many caring folks within this new Conservative party that do not at all

agree with the direction that Harper and the top aides are taking. We

saw witness of at least one member who stood up and made that clear by

crossing the floor.

We have seen very scary examples in other countries of what can happen

when the wrong leader is elected. It can take years to recover from the

decisions and mistakes made. Bush had some very clever PR people to

write speeches for him that made him look very good on camera. Harper

has very some very good PR people. Still, nothing can overcome the

truth of his actions and decisions and that is ultimately what we must

go by.

Finally - it is too simplistic and foolish for anyone to make broad

sweeping claims that absolutely every members of a particular party is

either corrupt or perfect. That is absolute nonsense. There are

extremely competent and decent people working hard in all political

parties. There are always some who are not up to scratch. For sure

there are unfortunately those few who are corrupt. That can be stated

about any party as we look back over history. For even as Harper has

pointing fingers and claiming that his party was so absolutely pure and

ethical, a 'not so perfect' apple showed up in his very own party. Do

we need to go back in time and look at previous Conservative parties

who had their share of scandal? No party is exempt. I believe that the

conservatives will eventually find a better leader and get a better

strategy but right now they are following Harper and that is a poor

choice for their party and for our country.

Whatever can be said about the current government, Canada is in an

exremely strong position and we are well respected in the world. On the

Iraq situation we stood out ground in spite of immense pressure and we

are respected for that. Our economical situation is actually very

strong and we have enormous opportunities ahead. Like him or not,

Martin has developed excelletn contacts across the gobe for trade. Sure

there eventually comes a time for change... but right now we need to

leverage and optimize on where we are at. It is really a very idea to

put someone in with very little experience and no international

contacts at this point in time. It is a potential disaster to put

Harper in for all the reasons above.

Whoever you vote for, I respectfully submit this to urge others who

care about Canada that we must NOT allow Harper and the conservatives

get into power in 2006.

[Argus]

Long thread and time to summarize why we must prevent Harper from becoming the leader of

our fine Country....

His actions have shown that he cares more about getting his party into

power than the best interests of Canada.

Are you talking about Harper here, or Chretien and Martin? Because both of the latter have repeatedly shown that they are willing to completely ignore Canada's best interests. Both men were selfish and cared only for themselves and their supporters. The way Martin abandoned any efforts at improving relations with the US, our enormously important trading partner and ally, in favour of crass, cheap shots that he hoped would endear him to anti-American bigots speaks volumes about his lack of patriotism and cheap opportunism. Then there was his sleazy, long-term efforts at undermining his own leader, undercutting his authority, and taking over the party.

Here are some examples to support these statements.

1. Back in May 2005 Harper and his team saw an opportunity to get into

power by jumping on the sponsorship scandal.

What would you have had them do, ignore it? Oh, government corruption? Not our business. We love our government! Right. Apparently graft, corruption and theft is no problem for you. Hey! You must be a member of the Liberal party!

2. Harper pressed very hard to have Canada send troops to Iraq.

Martin was said to be in favour of this too, though Martin never took a hard stand on anything he couldn't back away from if the polls went against him.

3. Harper and his party have decided to use GST gimic and poorly

thought out tax schemes to try to convince people to vote for them.

They've always been in favour of tax cuts. The gimics have been all those promises the Liberals have made, the grand flood of promises all through their minority term and into the election. At least the Tories will probably keep their promises, not being lying crooks like the Liberals.

4. With all the internal focus on merging of the ex-Reform /Alliance/

Conservative party, this is really a relatively newly formed party

coming out of a great deal of inner turmoil.

Nonsense. If any party has inner turmoil it's the Liberals, with the Chretinites and Martinies on the verge of open warfare.

Finally - it is too simplistic and foolish for anyone to make broad

sweeping claims that absolutely every members of a particular party is

either corrupt or perfect. That is absolute nonsense. There are

extremely competent and decent people working hard in all political

parties.

Certainly true. It's just unfortunate that all the lying thieves are the guys in charge of the Liberal party. I mean, if they were at least somewhat competent that could be partially excused. But Martin and Chretien have combined to show us a series of do-nothing governments awash in corruption, patronage, incompetence and waste. It's long past time to chuck them into the garbage bin of history and start afresh.

[tml12]

Dear emailforcanada,

Other parts of your post were prevocative, but the last part--which I have taken apart below--is most prevocative.

"Whatever can be said about the current government, Canada is in an

exremely strong position and we are well respected in the world."

Canada is NOT in an extremely strong position. We merely have a good economy now...that is all. We are NOT well respected in the world. That is not to say that other countries do not like Canada, only that we are in such a second tier status in the world, that other countries know not of what to think of us.

"On the Iraq situation we stood out ground in spite of immense pressure and we

are respected for that."

We are not "respected" for it. Both a majority of the federal Liberals and Conservatives supported the Iraq War. We are not respected for saying "no" to the war and sending troops in there anyway, trying to get a piece of the Iraqi oil pie. We also make most of the bullets used in Iraq.

"Our economical situation is actually very

strong and we have enormous opportunities ahead. Like him or not,

Martin has developed excelletn contacts across the gobe for trade."

I am generally apathetic about Paul Martin. He is not a disingenuous man like Chretien, but is rather a dithering hypocrite whose overly cautious personality and attempt to please everyone just frustrates everyone. He is a brilliant economist, but his budget deficit reduction came at the expense of our social programs and health care...the same things the Liberals are running on in this election.

"Sure there eventually comes a time for change... but right now we need to

leverage and optimize on where we are at. It is really a very idea to

put someone in with very little experience and no international

contacts at this point in time. It is a potential disaster to put

Harper in for all the reasons above."

The time for change is now. Harper may not be well-known internationally, but not all PMs have to have well-known international ties. And besides, we need a lot of domestic help and the repairing of our ties with the Americans before we even look anywhere else. Harper is the man for this.

[Shady]

I am upset by the apathy that cannot understand that Harper is not patriotic at all

Are you questioning his patriotism? Cause if there's one thing I've learned, especially from American liberals, is that patriotism is the one thing you absolutely cannot question. I find your actions shocking and appalling.

[kimmy]

Long thread and time to summarize why we must prevent Harper from becoming the leader of

our fine Country....

translation: "Long thread and time to repost the form-letter that I've already posted in this forum, and probably in several others like it."

1. Back in May 2005 Harper and his team saw an opportunity to get into power by jumping on the sponsorship scandal. He and his team brought parliament to a virtual standstill for many days and created more instability for our country by attempting to topple the Government when an election had already been announced. Even if he believed that he would win, this type of instability is very bad for any country and the world perception of Canada. He failed - and rightly so. This is not the right way to get into power and a good leader would not have exacerbated the situation the way he did. It is just one example of the kind of choices that Harper makes and it shows he cares about his own party's interest over the well being of Canada. There is no question that the sponsorship scandal has had a negative impact on public confidence. Harper's choice however, was to make matters worse at a time when we needed all parties to do the right thing for Canada. The right thing would be to do everything possible to maintain political stability and keep parliamentary business going until the election.

What instability? What crisis? The only crisis was of the Liberal party itself. If you are claiming national unity was at stake, consider that replacing Paul Martin as prime minister might be the most important action Canadians could take towards resolving that issue. If you're talking about the loonie dipping a few cents at the international currency markets and so forth, get real.

We have a parliamentary system that allows elections to be forced when the prime minister has lost the confidence to govern. Quite clearly Paul Martin had done so, and parliament was well within its right to exercise that power. Forcing an election is not of itself "instability". It's a natural occurence in our parliamentary system.

2. Harper pressed very hard to have Canada send troops to Iraq.

Martin also said at the time that if he was prime minister, we'd be in Iraq.

3. Harper and his party have decided to use GST gimic and poorly thought out tax schemes to try to convince people to vote for them. They have clearly put a lot of thought and planning into the election strategy but what is very worrisome is that they have not fully thought out or calculated the costs or ramifications to Canada of their promises. Proof of this is when he said in an interview that he may 'throw in a couple more campaign policies' before the campaign ends. This indicates that they are whipping up ideas to lure voters. Major policies should be well thought out and thoroughly analyzed... not made up on the fly and thrown in for good measure to try and get elected.

Harper and company introduced their policies early in the election, and have stood by them.

Martin, on the other hand, is running about with new policy announcements trying to recapture the attention of voters.

What more graphic example could one find of a policy invented on the fly than Paul Martin's promise to scrap the notwithstanding clause? He presented this pledge in the middle of a debate on national TV. His own people are unable to explain when the plan was made, "some time ago" being the most specific answer they've provided. The promise to scrap the notwithstanding clause does not appear anywhere in their "Red Book" policy document. Anne McLellan, the Deputy Prime Minister, one of Martin's staunchest supporters, a member of every committee worth knowing about, and a professor of constitutional law, says that she wasn't even asked about the idea. (read article here.)

4. With all the internal focus on merging of the ex-Reform /Alliance/Conservative party, this is really a relatively newly formed party coming out of a great deal of inner turmoil. I believe that there are

many caring folks within this new Conservative party that do not at all agree with the direction that Harper and the top aides are taking. We saw witness of at least one member who stood up and made that clear by crossing the floor.

The Conservatives look quite united, don't they?

The Liberals, with the well-publicized feud between the pro-Martin factions and Chretien supporters, are the party with a great deal inner turmoil. It has only become worse, as the campaign has floundered and some Liberals are openly expressing dissatisfaction with Paul Martin and with the campaign team. Even Anne McLellan, Martin's closest ally, basically pulled the plug on him today. Prominent Liberals are now making little secret of their preparations for the fight to replace Martin. Why on earth would Canadians vote to elect a prime minister whose own party considers him a lame duck?

Finally - it is too simplistic and foolish for anyone to make broad sweeping claims that absolutely every members of a particular party is either corrupt or perfect.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that absolutely every Liberal is corrupt or that absolutely every Conservative is perfect. However, as the Liberals stumble from one high-profile controversy to the next, I don't think that "hey, nobody's perfect" is an adequate excuse for their performance or a compelling reason to reelect them.

Whatever can be said about the current government, Canada is in an exremely strong position and we are well respected in the world. On the Iraq situation we stood out ground in spite of immense pressure and we are respected for that. Our economical situation is actually very strong and we have enormous opportunities ahead. Like him or not, Martin has developed excelletn contacts across the gobe for trade. Sure there eventually comes a time for change... but right now we need to leverage and optimize on where we are at. It is really a very idea to put someone in with very little experience and no international contacts at this point in time. It is a potential disaster to put Harper in for all the reasons above.

Talking about Martin's international contacts seems a little odd when he's done his best to alienate our most important international partner, as an election strategy no less. It is not Martin's international contacts that put Canada in such a strong position. It is our immense national resources. Using our resources to open doors, and improving relations with the Americans, will allow Harper to continue and expand our trade opportunities around the globe.

The greatest threat to Canada's prosperity is not our relationship with other countries, it is the danger of Quebec separatism. And on this front, electing Paul Martin to another term would be disasterous for the country and a threat to our continued existance. Under the Liberals, regional tensions within the country have risen to an all-time high. The Liberal party has discredited federalism so badly in Quebec that it has put this country in danger of breaking up, and another term of Paul Martin as prime minister will push us to the brink. We need a different prime minister, one who doesn't come with all of the baggage the Liberals have accumulated since 1995. Not long ago the Liberals claimed they were the only federalist option in Quebec, but now polls show twice as many Quebec voters support the Conservative party as the Liberals. Quebec voters prefer a socially conservative party with a western Canadian anglophone leader to the Martin Liberals. What further proof does one need that the federal Liberals are damaged goods in Quebec? What further proof does one need that the Liberals are incapable of addressing national unity? What could be a more convincing argument for change than that?

Whoever you vote for, I respectfully submit this to urge others who care about Canada that we must NOT allow Harper and the conservatives get into power in 2006.

"This is not a chain letter, this is real.

Forward this to nobody, and Revenue Canada will audit your tax return.

Forward this to 5 people, and you will receive an Industry Canada grant.

Forward this to 10 or more people, and you will be made ambassador to Denmark!"

-k

[mcqueen625]

The latest news is that Martin is now attacking Layton simply because he is attacking the Liberal's instead of the Conservatives. This should show the people just how desperate Paul Martin is to retain 24 Sussex Drive as his home. This nothing but the desperation of someone hwo is about to be fired, and doesn't like it one bit. Martin even insunuated that Albertan's don't have the same values as other Canadians. I would say that at least they have values and morals which is certainly more than I can say for either the Liberla's or the NDP.

[Harare]

If e-mail boy's list of reasons for why Harper needs to be stopped is the best that the Libs and socialists can come up with then I think we should just get on with it and vote Harper in. The logic and hypocritical reasoning

displayed is so patheitc that I can't even be bothered to take the time to respond, except for one quip about the naughty Harper opportunism as compared to the well thought out offer of a cabinet post to Belinda which of course was not opportunism or bribery.

Senate seat for Buzz Hargrove ?? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[geoffrey]

The latest news is that Martin is now attacking Layton simply because he is attacking the Liberal's instead of the Conservatives. This should show the people just how desperate Paul Martin is to retain 24 Sussex Drive as his home. This nothing but the desperation of someone hwo is about to be fired, and doesn't like it one bit. Martin even insunuated that Albertan's don't have the same values as other Canadians. I would say that at least they have values and morals which is certainly more than I can say for either the Liberla's or the NDP.

The Liberals have been trying to make Albertans second class citizens for years. We are an easy target. We have money, jobs, the strongest economy in probably the western world. So we are greedy, conservative, red neck Americans right? No surpise when Martin says that Albertans have different values. We do. But I take issue when he makes this a negative thing.

About time we're going to get some respect in Ottawa.

[Guest eureka]

I most certainly do question his patritism, shady, and I have given enough reasons for anyone with half a brain to question it also.

Harper is on record as wishing to dismantle the federal government. He is gaing support in Quebec not for his economic or social policies but because his views on the demands of Provinces are in line with those of the soft nationalists in Quebec.

What patriot would wish to end a country's existence as a country?

[August1991]

I most certainly do question his patritism, shady, and I have given enough reasons for anyone with half a brain to question it also.

Harper is on record as wishing to dismantle the federal government. He is gaing support in Quebec not for his economic or social policies but because his views on the demands of Provinces are in line with those of the soft nationalists in Quebec.

What patriot would wish to end a country's existence as a country?

Well, eureka, Paul Martin disagrees with you:

“I have large differences with Stephen Harper but I have never doubted his patriotism,” Martin said at a news conference in London.

Toronto Star

The prospect of a change in power makes many people nervous, and then they say weird things.

[Liam]

After the 2004 US election, a handful of American liberals threatened to move to Canada. Perhaps when Harper and the Tories win next week, we'll see a handful of Canadian Liberals lining up to move to Blue states?

[sage]

Simply because someone wants reconfigure how power is held in this country does not imply that he is not patriotic.

Again, as he's been stated in other threads, the sovereign threat is a direct result of people thinking that the current system is working.

To that end Eureka I would sugest that maintaining the status-quo will directly result in the splitting of the country that you are condemning.

[emailforcanada]

For those who have chosen to downplay Canada and our accomplishments in this thread, here is what is behind the assertion that we are respected in the world...

We are one of the few industrialized nations that has managed to dramatically reduce dept and get the economic house in order. In this global climate, other governments very much respect that accomplishment. We had a leadership at the time (including some opposition leaders) that were capable of seeing beyond the moment to asses the ramification to Canada of blindly following the US into the Iraq mess. Unfortunatley Harper was not among them and chose to push for our involvement which was a bad choice.

We have been involved in peace keeping and have made tremendous contributions when disasters occur. We are there and visible in a positive way across the world. We have been quite successful on the international front in terms of some of out foreign policy directions.

Whether you are prepared to accept it or not, there is a great deal of respect for Canada because we did not blindly follow Bush into the Iraq mess. Many in the US are now vehemently against the deception and the invasion and there is extreme backlash against Bush and others. Somehow our leaders withstood the enormous pressures at that time, saw the warning signals, and stood our ground in spite of the risk of not making Bush happy.

The best leaders can look beyond the present election and get beyond naval gazing. When you compare Harper with Martin ... Harper spends his time pointing fingers and looking for opportunities to lure voters to get his party elected... not much vision beyond that. Martin spends much more time with vision and is passionate about the opportunities for Canada.