Harper-Bush, Bush-Harper?

[geoffrey]

Well done. It's good to know something about the people who spend half their lives it the Aholes of the world, looking after our interests for very little money and not much respect, until one comes home in a body bag.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Couldn't be better said. Canada needs a good kick in the ass if they honestly believe we can stand at the sidelines and watch peace 'occur' through critics of war. Our troops are incrediable induviduals that deserve the highest respect of all Canadians, and deserve both better equipment and the chance to do their job in the areas of the world that need them the most.

In response to the rest of this thread...

Sad when Martin stood in front of the world and condemned the war in Sudan and did not act.

There was a time when Canada would have been first there, with millions dying (think Pearson). Yet instead we condemn the world for not acting.

Yes, Harper believes in rebuilding the military. I've yet to see a problem with this, considering he'll actually do it. The Liberals have failed in trying to do this for 12 years, yet they continually say they support our military and want to improve it.

Ridiculous. Military power is needed, Canada could have influence on the social welfare and peace of the world, yet we choose to instead make ourselves a laughingstock due to our talk and do nothing foreign policy.

I am actually embarrased by this at times, I wish I could be proud internationally of being Canadian.

[Minimus Maximus]

What do you know, the conservatives have a conspiracy theory to rival that of the Bush/Cheney administration's rise to power.

It's a long read.

Link

So do you have anything to back yourself up? Or are you just going to post whatever dribbles out of your mouth?

All I am doing is posting what others have written. You are being childish. Show us all how Harper is not simply Bush-lite. Back up your posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Geez, great link there Honest. Do you read anything other than anti-conservative blogs? Conspiracies and Calgarians, oh my!

Why should I bother posting anything to show the differences between Bush and Harper when its apparent that others have done so and you simply ignore it? Your an extremist Honest, no matter what information is presented to you, you will continue on with your jihad against Harper and the Cons.

I liked your comment about "whatever dribbles out of my mouth", with friends like you the liberals need no enemies.

[Argus]

My fixation on the US has to do with the fact this is a thread comparing Harper to Bush.     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would be a good excuse if you weren't the one who started it.

[Argus]

You watch too much TV. The 101 is very famous American airborne division. We used to have an airborne battalion. A battalion is around 1000 men. Most divisions are ten times that size.

You don't remember the hazing? Was it not the 101 Airborne, Patricia Pats or something like that? That is the battalion, or whatever, Harper wants to resurect.

The Canadian Airbourne Regiment was a special unit whose members were drawn from the rest of the infantry, but principally the 22nd regiment and the Royal Canadian Regiment. It's officers at the time were principally Royal 22nd regiment officers (francophones) from Quebec. There was criticism of them before the unit left for Somalia, that discipline was extremly lax and the troops were not being supervised or disciplined properly, getting way out of hand (as will tend to happen with young men trained to kill who have nothing to do).

The officer who said they weren't ready for Somalia was fired and replaced. And the unit went to Somalia, where its agressiveness got out of hand on a few occasions, principally due to poor leadership. When they returned home in disgrace, a few enlisted men were punished but the officers who screwed up were decorated and promoted.

When it drew further bad publicity due to juvenile hazing (principally by R 22nd members) rituals it was disbanded. The unit was extremely well-trained, and disbanding it was an admission of defeat and lack of interest in the abilty of Canada to both protect itself and provide men to serve in UN and NATO peaecekeeping and peace making operations. It was a typical Liberal move to address the optics of a situation rather than the situation itself. All style, no substance has been a Liberal trademark for some time. And certainly continues into this election.

[The Honest Politician]

What do you know, the conservatives have a conspiracy theory to rival that of the Bush/Cheney administration's rise to power.

It's a long read.

Link

So do you have anything to back yourself up? Or are you just going to post whatever dribbles out of your mouth?

All I am doing is posting what others have written. You are being childish. Show us all how Harper is not simply Bush-lite. Back up your posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Geez, great link there Honest. Do you read anything other than anti-conservative blogs? Conspiracies and Calgarians, oh my!

Why should I bother posting anything to show the differences between Bush and Harper when its apparent that others have done so and you simply ignore it? Your an extremist Honest, no matter what information is presented to you, you will continue on with your jihad against Harper and the Cons.

I liked your comment about "whatever dribbles out of my mouth", with friends like you the liberals need no enemies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course there are differences between Harper and Bush. But there are too many similarities to be ignored, which is what you appear to be doing. So your argument of me being an "extremist" or on a jihad holds no water. I could say the same about anyone posting negative things against any political party. I just love how you think, finding and exposing the holes in the CPC platform, and making sure people understand who and what they are voting for by voting conservative, is a jihad.

When the conservatives do it, it is exposing the liberal corruption, but when Liberals do it, it is an unfair attack on the Conservative party, and it's leader.

The double standard that you put forth is the same double standard the conservatives want canadians to ignore. The CPC is far from spotless, but as long as they keep the MSM focussed on the liberals so they can quietly slink into office.

I love how you call me a terrorist simply because I am speaking my mind, and I disagree with you. How Bush-like!

Freedom of speech is not a value of the conservatives?

There are other freedoms the conservatives don't like. What will the Conservatives be accusing those people of?

[shoop]

HP,

Do you honestly think the CPC is controlling the MSM? If they had the power why wouldn't they have done so in 2004?

Attacking the media is the last refuge of a failing campaign.

The double standard that you put forth is the same double standard the conservatives want canadians to ignore. The CPC is far from spotless, but as long as they keep the MSM focussed on the liberals so they can quietly slink into office. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[The Honest Politician]

HP,

Do you honestly think the CPC is controlling the MSM? If they had the power why wouldn't they have done so in 2004?

Attacking the media is the last refuge of a failing campaign.

The double standard that you put forth is the same double standard the conservatives want canadians to ignore. The CPC is far from spotless, but as long as they keep the MSM focussed on the liberals so they can quietly slink into office. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't you see the CPC campaign has been run with the focus on dominating the MSM with the daily announcements, of policy and some liberal bashing. I didn't say it wasn't a good strategy, and I did not say they controlled the MSM.

Debating you is a waste. If you aren't attacking my spelling, or me personally, you are twisting my words. Is this more "typical conservative behaviour" or is it simply you?

[MableSpam]

Kyoto: canada's co2 emissions are higher due, in good part, to exporting energy to the US...not sure how that should factor into the scheme of things.

i do not think anyone is anti-american...what they are is anti-elitism, anti-nepotism, anti-us foreign policy, etc.

i am anti-bush administration policies. they are the ones who say that if u r not with their policies, then u r anti-american. they make everything "us vs them"...if u have been to a us college sports game u will know how the "us vs them" is deeply embedded in american culture.

why post heresay...

http://www.bloc-harper.com/blocharper/speech.htm

i agree with his canadian gov't disillusionment, but he is a little out there with quotes like:

"The package included distinct society status for

Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you,

putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a

whole bunch of other things."

tough to misinterpret his stand on the place of women in society.

[newbie]

i agree with his canadian gov't disillusionment, but he is a little out there with quotes like:

"The package included distinct society status for

Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you,

putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a

whole bunch of other things."

tough to misinterpret his stand on the place of women in society.

Mable, the cons will dismiss this by saying Harper has changed his mind on a lot of things and that quote no longer represents what he stands for (yeah, right).

[Canuck E Stan]

Mable, the cons will dismiss this by saying Harper has changed his mind on a lot of things and that quote no longer represents what he stands for (yeah, right).

.....unlike the promises kept from the Liberal Red Book from the last four elections.

[newbie]

Mable, the cons will dismiss this by saying Harper has changed his mind on a lot of things and that quote no longer represents what he stands for (yeah, right).

.....unlike the promises kept from the Liberal Red Book from the last four elections.

Ideology and party platforms from one leader to the next are two different things.

[Guest eureka]

Harper has also said proudly, since he is too thick to change his mind; that his fundamental principles have not changed from what they were ten years ago.

He has evolved, by his own admission, but only in certain issues that would increase the likelihood of his failing in his own ambitions.

All on his own admission. The statements have been made and clearly. He is the same neocon social conservative that he always was. He has evolved only in that he has learned that frightening the electorate with the real Harper will not win him votes.

The Dinosaur has evolved into a Tasmanian Devil. Not yet a pussy cat,

[mar]

Harper has also said proudly, since he is too thick to change his mind; that his fundamental principles have not changed from what they were ten years ago.

He has evolved, by his own admission, but only in certain issues that would increase the likelihood of his failing in his own ambitions.

All on his own admission. The statements have been made and clearly. He is the same neocon social conservative that he always was. He has evolved only in that he has learned that frightening the electorate with the real Harper will not win him votes.

The Dinosaur has evolved into a Tasmanian Devil. Not yet a pussy cat,

We apparently have to take his word that the evolution has occured (not saying anything on issues - which is pretty much all he's done - is not the same as coming out with a new statement).

I seem to recall someone on this continent saying he was a uniter, not a divider, that he had no interest in nation building, that he wanted to return civility to politics. Can't see that those changes have occured anywhere so maybe I remember wrong

Look, we all know what Harper is. If the U.S. NeoCons are your ideal of political philosophy, then by all means vote for him (or move to Mecca which is only a few miles South for most of you). However, if that's not your political opinion, don't be fooled by a deliberate strategy of avoidance and misdirection.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[geoffrey]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Thats what all the Ontario and Quebec voters are saying about the Liberals. We let them get away with this too long, shame on us. Lets vote for some real change in government.

I don't think Harper is as 'American' as you make him out to be. Nonetheless, I'd rather live in the U.S. then a country with a ruling party that openly steals from the public purse.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Harper-Bush, Bush-Harper.... both neo-cons who look after their friends and the rest can go to h*ll.

Actually its Paul Martin who looks afer his friends.

[mar]

I don't think Harper is as 'American' as you make him out to be. Nonetheless, I'd rather live in the U.S. then a country with a ruling party that openly steals from the public purse.

If you believe that you should emigrate. In fact the Bush administration might pay you to do so as over 70% of the native U.S. population believe their government steals from them on a massive scale for their own purposes. They need believers like you.

[geoffrey]

I don't think Harper is as 'American' as you make him out to be. Nonetheless, I'd rather live in the U.S. then a country with a ruling party that openly steals from the public purse.

If you believe that you should emigrate. In fact the Bush administration might pay you to do so as over 70% of the native U.S. population believe their government steals from them on a massive scale for their own purposes. They need believers like you.

I'll retract that I'd rather live in the US and change it to I wouldn't mind if our country had some US values.

The difference is that in the US its never been proven by the courts. We've had a judical investigation that found a 'culture of entitlement' and all that, as well as a party that stole money to get themselves re-elected.

Why would I move the US? I'm not behind Bush in any way at all. I absolutely realise that the US has far more social and economic issues than we have in Canada, in no way do I support the American government.

Canada has the potential to be a very democratic, responsible and just nation. We have massive amounts of resources in both nature (oil, gas, trees) and people, I just don't feel our current government has encouraged Canadian business to work with these resources as well as possible. Our government also need not be corrupt, there are only a few small reforms to gaurntee that those that defraud people are held to account. Martin had a choice, and he choose corruption.

I'd rather see democratic and economic reforms happen here then move south, despite the cold weather and snow.

My greatest point is that maybe Canadian's should be more open to some American ideas, because their country does have alot of great innovations that we could pick up on, and improve to our own ends.

[mar]

The difference is that in the US its never been proven by the courts.

Actually, that's not true. A number of U.S. goverments have lost civil suits and many more settled rather than go to judgement.

And you have to remember, the U.S. sytem makes political corruption endemic to the system and detection far less likely. It is documented that tens of millions of dollars in Iraq oil money as well as federal appropriations money is unaccounted for in Iraq (not some leftie view but in reported by the office of budgetary management) but with the house, senate and judiciary controlled by one party, no investigation is forthcoming.

The worst part of the U.S. system - and one which most constitutional experts agree was completely unanticipated by the framers of the constitution - is that because the document was conceived on a theoretical level for a pre 1800's world, there was no explicit prohibition against the takever of all aspects of goverment by political parties. Interestingly, one of the framers did want to toally prohibit political parties as he thought - rightly as it turned out - that they would twist and corrupt the consitution and system of government for their own ends.

U.S. elections are completely controlled by political parties which is a recipe for corruption and recent years have shown endless examples. And I am not limiting this to Republicans. The Democratic machine in Chicago and Massachussits is equally guilty. You saw this to an almost surreal degree in Florida where the person who would be the chief elections officer in Canada was appointed by a member of the same party as one of the candidates who happened to be the brother of that candidate and this same person in charge of the elcetion process was the head of this same candidate's campaign in that state. I mean, that's like a Marx Brothers movie.

It is extremely attractive - probably irresistible - for any party to do this and you can bet if the Liberals had total control of the electoral process in Ontario they would employ some strategy to limit voters who theier research showed would likely vote against them. The conservative party would do precisely the same elsewhere as history has taught us that no political party is above corruption when it comes to winning elections.

In addition to this one example, you have a federal appointment system for judges in the U.S. which makes ours seem like the model for transparency and light. And honestly, which one of the framers ever contemplated a day when the party in power would try to install individuals with no judicial credibility whatsoever onto the Supreme Court simply because they would do their political bidding? And yet this has become an accepted practice in the U.S.

Couple that with in excess of 6,000 party people paid by taxpayers money but not part of the civil service - and not governed by its rules - and responsible only to the party in power which U.S. government routinely install into every branch of government and you have a nightmare that makes sponsorship look like a minor gaffe.

If we scale that down to Canada, that would mean each government could appoint thousands of their party workers to control all aspects of each government department and, even tho these people would be paid by taxpayers they would not be part of the Civil Service or bound by its rules, reporting only to the PM. The effect of this is to both allow a draconian control and to provide a layer of protection against any investigation of the department.

What this amounts to is basically government by a semi-secret cabal of unelected officials. Prior to 1900, U.S. administrations routinely appointed members of either party to cabinet but that is long gone (Clinton being the last pres. to appoint a member of the other party to a key position). While we the voters have no direct control over who becomes minister of foreign affairs, defence, whatever, at least they have to be drawn from a pool of people elected by the Canadian people. So where is the accountability of these people who are responsible only to the president and elected by no-one?

Anyway, too long already...I'll stop.

[shoop]

Is any cabinet position a *key* position? Norman Mineta, former Democratic Congressman, has been Buh`s Sec. of Transportation for more than five years now?

What this amounts to is basically government by a semi-secret cabal of unelected officials. Prior to 1900, U.S. administrations routinely appointed members of either party to cabinet but that is long gone (Clinton being the last pres. to appoint a member of the other party to a key position).

[mar]

Is any cabinet position a *key* position? Norman Mineta, former Democratic Congressman, has been Buh`s Sec. of Transportation for more than five years now?

What this amounts to is basically government by a semi-secret cabal of unelected officials. Prior to 1900, U.S. administrations routinely appointed members of either party to cabinet but that is long gone (Clinton being the last pres. to appoint a member of the other party to a key position).

Key positions:

Sectretaries of State, Defence, Treasury, Attorney General.

Line if succession if president can not serve:

1. Vice President (Richard B. Cheney)

2. Speaker of the House of Representatives (J. Dennis Hastert)

3. President pro tempore of the Senate (Ted Stevens)

4. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice)

5. Secretary of the Treasury (John W. Snow)

6. Secretary of Defense (Donald H. Rumsfeld)

7. Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales)

8. Secretary of the Interior (Gale Norton)

9. Secretary of Agriculture (Mike Johanns)

10. Secretary of Commerce (Carlos Gutierrez, ineligible)

11. Secretary of Labor (Elaine Chao, ineligible)

12. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Michael Leavitt)

13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Alphonso Jackson)

14. Secretary of Transportation (Norman Y. Mineta)

15. Secretary of Energy (Samuel W. Bodman)

16. Secretary of Education (Margaret Spellings)

17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Jim Nicholson)

Don't look like Normie's getting anywhere near the reigns of power, huh? Other hand, Bill Cohen was merely 5 heartbeats away from the Oval office under Clinton

[shoop]

Really?

So in 2006 you are bemoaning a change made to U.S. politcs over a 100 years ago?

Why is this on a discussion of a Canadian Polics forum? Wrong forum perhaps?

What this amounts to is basically government by a semi-secret cabal of unelected officials. Prior to 1900, U.S. administrations routinely appointed members of either party to cabinet but that is long gone (Clinton being the last pres. to appoint a member of the other party to a key position).

[mar]

Really?

So in 2006 you are bemoaning a change made to U.S. politcs over a 100 years ago?

Why is this on a discussion of a Canadian Polics forum? Wrong forum perhaps?

What this amounts to is basically government by a semi-secret cabal of unelected officials. Prior to 1900, U.S. administrations routinely appointed members of either party to cabinet but that is long gone (Clinton being the last pres. to appoint a member of the other party to a key position).

gee shoop, I am sorry to waste your valuable time by disputing another poster's contention that U.S. governments are inherently more honest than Canadian governments on a thread entitled "Harper-Bush, Bush-Harper?, Just some joe shmoe."

Were we supposed to be discussing whether they were joe schmoe, john doe, or maybe joe sixpack?

My mistake.

[geoffrey]

Really?

So in 2006 you are bemoaning a change made to U.S. politcs over a 100 years ago?

Why is this on a discussion of a Canadian Polics forum? Wrong forum perhaps?

What this amounts to is basically government by a semi-secret cabal of unelected officials. Prior to 1900, U.S. administrations routinely appointed members of either party to cabinet but that is long gone (Clinton being the last pres. to appoint a member of the other party to a key position).

gee shoop, I am sorry to waste your valuable time by disputing another poster's contention that U.S. governments are inherently more honest than Canadian governments on a thread entitled "Harper-Bush, Bush-Harper?, Just some joe shmoe."

Were we supposed to be discussing whether they were joe schmoe, john doe, or maybe joe sixpack?

My mistake.

Well, we know Harper isn't joe-sixpack from that Cowboy suit picture.

Bush might be though...

[BubberMiley]

He looks like he's had a few too many sixpacks.

[Ginuwinemj]

I really agree with the topic of this thread, Harper is doing things and speaking very similarily to Bush. I cannot vote for someone who has the back of a president who is invading a country that had no weapons of Mass destruction and killing his own soldiers to get more oil. I don't want to speak on things too much but if you guys have the time go to http://question911.com and click on downloads and scroll down to 911 In Plane Site Directors cut part 1. If you haven't seen it already you need to. Thanks