Harper... Hate or Love?

Argus · January 3, 2006

I do hate Paul Martin, however, as I hated Jean Chretien, as I hated Brian Mulroney, as I hated Pierre Trudeau.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does that mean you loved John Turner, Kim Campbell and Joe Clark?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disliked Turner's phoneyness, Campbell's incompetence and Clark's pompous self-righteousness, but none were around long enough for me to really hate them.

BubberMiley · January 3, 2006

No chance that a conservative government would run a deficit? That's what the republicans said in 2000. All neo-cons run deficits because their reason-for-being is to run government into the ground because (remember?) they're anti-government.

Under a blue government, Canada would be in the red in a year.

Cameron · January 3, 2006

No chance that a conservative government would run a deficit? That's what the republicans said in 2000. All neo-cons run deficits because their reason-for-being is to run government into the ground because (remember?) they're anti-government.
Under a blue government, Canada would be in the red in a year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't know that before I signed on!!!!! Is God real too?!?!?! <_<

shoop · January 3, 2006

Oh I get it. Scary-scary-scary won't work anymore.

So make people afraid of the CPC by comparing them to the Republicans.

Man the desperation of the Liberals is comical. :lol:

No chance that a conservative government would run a deficit? That's what the republicans said in 2000. All neo-cons run deficits because their reason-for-being is to run government into the ground because (remember?) they're anti-government.
Under a blue government, Canada would be in the red in a year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Honest Politician · January 3, 2006

Oh I get it. Scary-scary-scary won't work anymore.
So make people afraid of the CPC by comparing them to the Republicans.

Man the desperation of the Liberals is comical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well if it walks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck.........

shoop · January 3, 2006

No policy. No record of accomplishments. No vision for the future.

Empty one-liners is all you have to offer Canadians?

That's ok. Maybe *tommorow* you can change the momentum of the campaign. :lol:

Well if it walks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck.........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Honest Politician · January 3, 2006

Please, like you have been offering anything better to support the Destructive party of Canada.

I find it funny how what is OK for the Destructives is underhanded or wrong for the Liberals.

Nice campaign ad. First tell everybody to expect, a low blow it from your opponent then do it yourself.

shoop · January 3, 2006

Where does *Destructive Party of Canada* come from?

Oh that's right. If you oppose the Liberals then you are an enemy of Canada. I forgot. My bad. :lol:

So is that supposed to represent the Conservatives, the Bloc Quebecois or the New Democrats?

Please, like you have been offering anything better to support the Destructive party of Canada.
I find it funny how what is OK for the Destructives is underhanded or wrong for the Liberals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Honest Politician · January 3, 2006

Where does *Destructive Party of Canada* come from?
Oh that's right. If you oppose the Liberals then you are an enemy of Canada. I forgot. My bad.

So is that supposed to represent the Conservatives, the Bloc Quebecois or the New Democrats?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Destructive comes from the outcome of their policies if they are given a chance to make them law.

Enough hints. You figure it out.

shoop · January 4, 2006

Typical Liberal arrogance when dealing with *commoners*. Keep it up. That is what's losing you this election. :lol:

Destructive comes from the outcome of their policies if they are given a chance to make them law.
Enough hints. You figure it out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BubberMiley · January 4, 2006

Oh I get it. Scary-scary-scary won't work anymore.
So make people afraid of the CPC by comparing them to the Republicans.

Man the desperation of the Liberals is comical.

I'm not a liberal. I vote NDP (though I may, for the first time, be a strategic voter).

So how are the CPC different from the republicans? Stephen Harper comes from the same school of thought as David Frum. I can't see how they are anything but a GOP Mini-Me.

shoop · January 4, 2006

Here is the CPC Web site, with the party platform. www.conservative.ca

Here is the Republican National Committee Web site. www.rnc.org

Instead of asking how they are different, why not show me how they are the same. You pick an issue and I will point out the differences.

I'm not a liberal. I vote NDP (though I may, for the first time, be a strategic voter).
So how are the CPC different from the republicans? Stephen Harper comes from the same school of thought as David Frum. I can't see how they are anything but a GOP Mini-Me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BubberMiley · January 4, 2006

Okay. For starters, how about

Same-sex marriage

Criminalization of marijuana

Kyoto?

shoop · January 4, 2006

Clearly you didn't take a look at either Web site. Or you wouldn't have posted such uninformed *starters*. :lol:

SSM - significant difference between the CPC and the Republicans plans. CPC will hold a free vote in parliament, recognize existing marriages if the vote passes and *will not* envoke the notwithstanding clause *IF* any new legislation is overturned by the Supremes. The Republicans will not allow any SSMs of any kind and favour a constitutional amendment if the U.S. Supremes force them to do so.

Marijuana laws. The Republicans favour stricter laws, including mandatory incarceration. The CPC is in favour of the current status quo in Canada, with very lax enforcement.

Environment. The U.S. has made more strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the last 15 years than has Canada. Maybe Martin shouldn't have been throwing stones in Montreal. Glass house and all...

Okay. For starters, how about
Same-sex marriage

Criminalization of marijuana

Kyoto?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Honest Politician · January 4, 2006

Marijuana laws. The Republicans favour stricter laws, including mandatory incarceration. The CPC is in favour of the current status quo in Canada, with very lax enforcement.

Hold on. I just read that Harper wants minimum jail terms for possession over a certain amout.

shoop · January 4, 2006

Post a link of what you just read. Haven't heard that but a lot depends on how much the *certain amount* is.

Hold on. I just read that Harper wants minimum jail terms for possession over a certain amout.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

stignasty · January 4, 2006

Post a link of what you just read. Haven't heard that but a lot depends on how much the *certain amount* is.
Hold on. I just read that Harper wants minimum jail terms for possession over a certain amout.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/static.../marijuana.html

Argus · January 4, 2006

No chance that a conservative government would run a deficit? That's what the republicans said in 2000. All neo-cons run deficits because their reason-for-being is to run government into the ground because (remember?) they're anti-government.
Under a blue government, Canada would be in the red in a year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fatuous drivel.

And Bush is not a neo con or a conservative of any kind. He's simply a rich, daddy's boy opportunist.

Argus · January 4, 2006

Oh I get it. Scary-scary-scary won't work anymore.
So make people afraid of the CPC by comparing them to the Republicans.

Man the desperation of the Liberals is comical.

I'm not a liberal. I vote NDP (though I may, for the first time, be a strategic voter).

So how are the CPC different from the republicans? Stephen Harper comes from the same school of thought as David Frum. I can't see how they are anything but a GOP Mini-Me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You surely can't see. Might have something to do with the blinders you're wearing.

If the Conservatives were to take their policy manual and try to run in the US they'd be branded as Socialists. They're certainly to the left of the US Democratic Party, never mind the Republicans.

Wilber · January 4, 2006

Post a link of what you just read. Haven't heard that but a lot depends on how much the *certain amount* is.
Hold on. I just read that Harper wants minimum jail terms for possession over a certain amout.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/static.../marijuana.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Says he opposes decriminalization but mandatory sentences only for trafficking, importing, exporting or producing more than 3 kg. No mention of mandatory sentences for possession.

Decriminalzing possession is a half assed policy. I don't think it makes much difference whether you call it a crime or a misdemeanor, a conviction will still keep you on this side of the border.

80% of drug production in BC is for export. As long as the laws south of the border don't change, the amount of crime involved won't change. There is just too much money in it. It will only make our relations with the US even worse.

The Honest Politician · January 4, 2006

Right, my mistake. He didn't acutally say "possession" of 3kg. But someone who is found in possession of 3kg is usually automatically charged with Trafficking. So I see no real difference.

Decriminalizing is a half assed approach. It should be legalized, taxed and controlled. The fact Marijuana is illegal, while cigarettes and alcohol are perfectly legal is one of the biggest jokes in the law books.

The revenue generated from selling "grow" licenses and taxing store bought marijuana could go directly into additional border patrols and "hard" drug law enforcement. The truly evil drugs like Crack, Crystal meth, Extasy, heroin, and what ever knew one comes along could be fought with both money produced from the legal cultivation and consuption of Marijuana and also the money saved from not having to fight it in the first place. Drug users would be supporting the war on drugs. How can that be wrong?

shoop · January 4, 2006

3 kg is a *huge* amount of pot.

Some dude would have to be CHRONIC to have that much for personal use.

Right, my mistake. He didn't acutally say "possession" of 3kg. But someone who is found in possession of 3kg is usually automatically charged with Trafficking. So I see no real difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wilber · January 4, 2006

I would think that someone caught with more than 3 kg (6.6 lbs) probably is trafficking. I don't use the stuff but how long might that much last a family of four?

Other than that I have to say there is some sense to what you say but you don't address the fact that the major illegal drug exported south is marijuana and the Americans don't like it. You may not agree but it is a fact we have to deal with. I live near the border, I have property and friends in the US. I cross the border a lot and neither I, the Americans I know or the tens of thousands of Canadians who travel and do business across the border want it made much more difficult just because a bunch of Canadians want the right to get stoned.

shoop · January 4, 2006

Uhhh, most people don't smoke with their kids. A real hardcore smoker could probably smoke five joints a day for a year with that much...

I would think that someone caught with more than 3 kg (6.6 lbs) probably is trafficking. I don't use the stuff but how long might that much last a family of four?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Honest Politician · January 4, 2006

Cops will weigh the dirt on the roots just to boost their numbers.

Wet Marijuana is heavy and 6.6 pounds would not be the total weight of one medium sized living plant.

The guy with a plant in his back yard does not deserve two years in jail.

I will grant you that 6.6 pounds of dry Marijuana Buds is a heck of a lot. But you are probably only going to find that type of quantity among organized crime members. That is totally different. They made their choice, and they can deal with the consequences.