Stephen Harper, Conrad Black & Richard Perle (aka Darth Vader)

[err]

blahblahblah

I noticed you've switched from blue script to red script. Does that mean you're "going negative"?

Nothing to say about the argument.... cat's got your tongue... or are you too awestruck by all the pretty colours.... If so, here's another one that I don't think he added enough colour to....

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.

Now that's scary....

It's not really news. Our friend "onlythetruth" posted all of this months ago, shortly before he was abducted by the Star Angels for rectal probing.

I find the CPC type's fascination with genetalia, rectums, child-porn, homosexuals, and other such topics .... well... very interesting....

[apollo19]

I don't quite see the problem here... Harper went to a right-wing conference. So? I have no doubt at one time or another Layton has gone to some socialist conference, and Martin has been to a billionaires conference. What is the big deal? The only scary politician in Canada is Layton and his treatment of the middle class, but Harper and Martin are actually personally quite alike -- except that Martin is 100x richer.

[newbie]

I find the CPC type's fascination with genetalia, rectums, child-porn, homosexuals, and other such topics .... well... very interesting....

It seems that's what they resort too when they can't debate the truth.

[River_God]

I don't quite see the problem here... Harper went to a right-wing conference. So?

This has been brought up a few times.

The Scary thing is that Harper has a history of kissing up to the worst of these guys while smearing Canada in the process.

=================

The 2003 guest list includes names such as David Rockefeller, Richard Perle (Iraq war architect, key Bush pupeteer and self-proclaimed Darth Vader), Klaus Schwab (World Economic Forum), Henry Kissinger, the King and Queen of Spain, Paul Wolfowitz (another Iraq war architect and key Bush pupeteer) and a host of other bankers, corporate heads and royalty. Canadians in attendance included Conrad Black, Mark Steyn (National Post) Heather Reisman (Chapters-Indigo), Anthony Fell (RBC Dominion Securities) and Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition

=============

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

===========

Richard Perle QUOTES

A year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.

Acknowledge that a more closely integrated Europe is no longer an unqualified American interest.

But 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.

Dictators must have enemies. They must have internal enemies to justify their secret police and external enemies to justify their military forces.

Dictatorships start wars because they need external enemies to exert internal control over their own people.

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.

Richard Perle

[kimmy]

blahblahblah

I noticed you've switched from blue script to red script. Does that mean you're "going negative"?

Nothing to say about the argument.... cat's got your tongue... or are you too awestruck by all the pretty colours....

What's here that's worth commenting on?

He attended a Bilderberg conference. (shrug) Conrad Black and Richard Perle also attended. So did 98 other people. Here's the list: http://www.bilderberg.org/2003.htm

Yep, Harper's there. So is that chick that owns Indigo Books. So are business and political leaders from the United States, Canada, and every European country of any note. My favorite guest: Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. I enjoy him every time he appears on Jon Stewart's Daily Show.

Then a bunch of stuff about Perle. Then a bunch of stuff about Conrad Black and Hollinger. (shrug.) What link is there between Black and Harper, or Perle and Harper? You guys seem to read so much into those 3 people being at the same conference. What makes you so sure those 3 are connected in some sort of Unholy Secret Triangle of Doom? What if the Unholy Secret Triangle is actually Stephen Harper, Heather Reisman, and Fareed Zakaria??? I can't imagine what sort of ultra secret plots those 3 might be hatching, but I bet it would involve Harper's face on the cover of every Newsweek Magazine on shelves in every Chapters store in Canada. (shudder.)

Then the shocking revelation that The Tyee magazine-- the left-coast's left-wing alternative news magazine-- has philosophical disagreements with the "Calgary School", and was able to find a university professor who feels the same.

Then some blather about a secret address to a secret think-tank called "Civitas". Well, unless there's other conservative think-tanks called Civitas around, they're not exactly secret: http://www.civitas.org.uk/books/about.php

Imagine. A conservative politician giving an address for a conservative think-tank. This just gets more and more shocking, doesn't it?

And then some quotes.

If so, here's another one that I don't think he added enough colour to....

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.

Now that's scary....

Scary? I think it's worth thinking about. Are there situations where our society puts limitations on freedoms in the name of political correctness? I think you could probably make a case that in some cases, yes we do. I don't see this comment as being out of line at all. I think it's something we as a society should always be mindful of.

And this one, of course,

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

is not worth discussing until we have the whole quote and the context in which it was said.

How do I know it's not the whole quote? Because we don't even get to know what Harper says is of primary importance. Give us the whole quote and the context it was made in if you want to discuss it.

-k

It seems that's what they resort too when they can't debate the truth.

Ok, since you insist, I've reacted to your 'truth'. Get busy.

-k

This has been brought up a few times.

Posting the same tripe again and again doesn't make it any truer (or any more lucid, either.)

-k

[err]

And then some quotes.

If so, here's another one that I don't think he added enough colour to....

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.

Now that's scary....

Scary? I think it's worth thinking about. Are there situations where our society puts limitations on freedoms in the name of political correctness? I think you could probably make a case that in some cases, yes we do. I don't see this comment as being out of line at all. I think it's something we as a society should always be mindful of.

Harper's statement that they're an attack on our "fundamental freedoms"... I wonder what kinds of freedoms... the right to bash homos and blacks.... The freedom to stop girls from getting abortions ??? (PS. Somehow you seem to be switching the colours of the text to, so I'll help you with an even prettier one...)

And this one, of course,

Stephan Harper:

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

is not worth discussing until we have the whole quote and the context in which it was said.

How do I know it's not the whole quote? Because we don't even get to know what Harper says is of primary importance. Give us the whole quote and the context it was made in if you want to discuss it.

Gee, could you help me think of a context where the meaning of this statement would be any different.... I'm having difficulty with this one.....

It seems that's what they resort too when they can't debate the truth.

Ok, since you insist, I've reacted to your 'truth'. Get busy.

Maybe you should run for politics... You can talk a lot and say abolutely nothing.

[geoffrey]

Harper's statement that they're an attack on our "fundamental freedoms"... I wonder what kinds of freedoms... the right to bash homos and blacks.... The freedom to stop girls from getting abortions ??? (PS. Somehow you seem to be switching the colours of the text to, so I'll help you with an even prettier one...)

These so called human rights tribunals clearly do impact the fundamental freedoms of the majority. I really don't see how a government should ever be able to force me to act a certain way. For example, in hiring people, if I have to two equally qualified candiates on paper, but I get along with one better. This person is of the same race as me. I can't hire me, as these tribunals would fine me and force me to employ the other person.

My business is my business.

And maybe parents should be able to stop their legal responsibilities from getting abortions... or at least maybe someone should tell the parents that their daughter has had 10 abortions in the last 2 years. These aren't fundamental rights, last time I checked parents should get to know what their kids are up to.

Just a few examples of problems with this concept of a rights distributor.

Gee, could you help me think of a context where the meaning of this statement would be any different.... I'm having difficulty with this one.....

In an academic paper regarding the socio-economic conditions on native reservations.

Maybe you should run for politics... You can talk a lot and say abolutely nothing.

More personal attacks from you guys, please people, either talk about issues or don't talk at all. It degrades your position when you say things like that.

[kimmy]

And then some quotes.

If so, here's another one that I don't think he added enough colour to....

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.

Now that's scary....

Scary? I think it's worth thinking about. Are there situations where our society puts limitations on freedoms in the name of political correctness? I think you could probably make a case that in some cases, yes we do. I don't see this comment as being out of line at all. I think it's something we as a society should always be mindful of.

Harper's statement that they're an attack on our "fundamental freedoms"... I wonder what kinds of freedoms... the right to bash homos and blacks.... The freedom to stop girls from getting abortions ???

Typical hysterics, but nothing to do with what I said.

I strongly suspect Harper was talking about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association, all of which have been challenged in some way or another in the name of minority rights. But that's not stuff you're interested in talking about, is it.

And this one, of course,

Stephan Harper:

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

is not worth discussing until we have the whole quote and the context in which it was said.

How do I know it's not the whole quote? Because we don't even get to know what Harper says is of primary importance. Give us the whole quote and the context it was made in if you want to discuss it.

Gee, could you help me think of a context where the meaning of this statement would be any different.... I'm having difficulty with this one.....

We won't know until we get the full quote, will we.

But dealing in editted quotes and taking quotes out of context is about all your ilk have left now, isn't it.

Maybe you should run for politics... You can talk a lot and say abolutely nothing.

You say a lot, but all of it is drivel.

-k

[oldbetang]

What is Stephen Harper doing at a super-secret Bilderberg meeting of the Western worlds central bankers, defense experts, press barons, royalty, prime ministers, international financiers, industrialists and government officials?

What were Paul Martin and Jean Chretien doing at the Bilderberg conference in 1996? Can we refer to them as neocons from now on?

[oldbetang]

These so called human rights tribunals clearly do impact the fundamental freedoms of the majority. I really don't see how a government should ever be able to force me to act a certain way. For example, in hiring people, if I have to two equally qualified candiates on paper, but I get along with one better. This person is of the same race as me. I can't hire me, as these tribunals would fine me and force me to employ the other person.

My business is my business.

Harper's statement alone on the Orwellian Human Rights Tribunals would be enough to secure my vote for the CPC. I should be free to verbally bash Homos, asexuals, polys, or any other group as long as I do not slander or threaten (or incite) physical violence against them.

[Yaro]

I don't quite see the problem here... Harper went to a right-wing conference. So? I have no doubt at one time or another Layton has gone to some socialist conference, and Martin has been to a billionaires conference. What is the big deal? The only scary politician in Canada is Layton and his treatment of the middle class, but Harper and Martin are actually personally quite alike -- except that Martin is 100x richer.

And this is the fundemental mistake being made, this isn't a "right-wing conference", this is a group of sociopaths. There philosophies are not in any way main-stream "right wing", they advocate some things that I have no doubt nobody on this board outside a few of the more looney toon members would find acceptable and quite a few of them at that. Do some research on this group and I am fairly certien you will come to the same conclusion.

[betsy]

[quote name='River_God' date='Jan 7 2006, 08:41 PM'

Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

Oh boy, I could swear he's talking about the Liberals!

[Brian]

[quote name='River_God' date='Jan 7 2006, 08:41 PM'

Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

Oh boy, I could swear he's talking about the Liberals!

[Brian]

Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party he leads definitely have a considerable following if the polls are to be believed. I have no doubt that Harper, at heart, is a conservative with very fundamentalist views. I also have no doubt that there is a link between the neoconservative element in the Republican Party in the USA and the Harper led Conservative Party. The current Conservative Party is after all the by-product of a rather questionable merger of the old Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance (Reform Party).

For some voters, who are of a conservative persuasion, there appears to be a need to decide whether to vote for Harper and his bunch, to continue to support the Liberals (there is a sizable element of conservatism in the Martin version of the party), or not vote at all. Depending where a person is located I would suggest, as a social democrat, that those undecided vote strategically.

I am hoping this next Parliament will have many more NDP MP(s) with the NDP holding the balance of power. Should this be the case it really doesn't matter to me whether the Liberals or Conservatives have the most seats.

Under the current circumstances I like the idea of a minority government as the arrogance of majority government is replaced with a more collaborative approach.

[betsy]

I say, we should be focused on priorities here.

ALL THIS DRIVEL ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVES....ALL BACKED UP BY NOTHING BUT CONJECTURES AND PREDICTIONS!

The biggest problem, and the top priority should be how do we stop the CORRUPTIONS that had seeped itself too deeply into our system....

....because if we do not do some damage control now....

.........CANADA WILL BE THE NEXT BRAZIL OR ARGENTINA OR CUBA!

I say, LET'S CLEAN HOUSE!

[River_God]

.........CANADA WILL BE THE NEXT BRAZIL OR ARGENTINA OR CUBA!

I say, LET'S CLEAN HOUSE!

Cleaning House is a great idea. All of Canada's political parties need to clean up their act.

I personally don't have any faith that Harper would do a significantly better job than Martin as the next Prime Minister, and I have serious doubts that Harper would be much worse.

Harper is a good leader of the opposition though. He’s doing a good job shaking all the cobwebs out of the Liberal’s basement.

[tml12]

I say, we should be focused on priorities here.

ALL THIS DRIVEL ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVES....ALL BACKED UP BY NOTHING BUT CONJECTURES AND PREDICTIONS!

The biggest problem, and the top priority should be how do we stop the CORRUPTIONS that had seeped itself too deeply into our system....

....because if we do not do some damage control now....

.........CANADA WILL BE THE NEXT BRAZIL OR ARGENTINA OR CUBA!

I say, LET'S CLEAN HOUSE!

Agreed.

[Argus]

CPC supporters will likely respond by saying "My God, that was two years ago. He's a changed man! Calling Harper a neocon is unfair and hurtful."

What I say is: Holy crap, they're trotting out wierd world-wide conspiracy theories now? How desperate can you get?

[scribblet]

I say, we should be focused on priorities here.

ALL THIS DRIVEL ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVES....ALL BACKED UP BY NOTHING BUT CONJECTURES AND PREDICTIONS!

The biggest problem, and the top priority should be how do we stop the CORRUPTIONS that had seeped itself too deeply into our system....

....because if we do not do some damage control now....

.........CANADA WILL BE THE NEXT BRAZIL OR ARGENTINA OR CUBA!

I say, LET'S CLEAN HOUSE!

Actually Paul Martin attended a B. conference too. This is just trolling to stir the pot, the liberals look like they are losing and they are getting restless. He's spamming other forums with this too.

[Argus]

Make your mind up Young Liberal Harper is either a neo conservative or a neo fascist.

Your going to have to go back to Liberal smear school to brush up on your smearing tactics if you keep doing this kinda of job tripping over yourself ever mintue you get the chance.

People like this don't distinguish between conservatives, neo-conservatives, and fascists. It's all the great black evil to them.

So you are saying that Harper hasn't changed which means that everthing in my first post is still valid.

By the way neo-conservative and neo-fascist are two words for the same thing.

See! I told you! I told you!

I don't know much about this conspiracy theory group of yours. I caught the part, though, where they said most people are too stupid to make political decisions.

People like you are a testimant to that.

You bet BQ. Guilt by Association plus guilty unless Harper can show that he has changed his ideology in the last 10 years.

Harper does look kind of like a plastic-faced makeover candidate.

You haven't shown anything about his ideology in that idiotic post. All you showed was that he gave a speech once - though you give no quotes as to what he said. People like Harper give speeches all over the country to every kind of group. So what?

[Argus]

I believe that there is a civil war in the CPC: neocons versus moderate conservatives; Harper supporters and the anybody-but-Harper former PCers who supported Stronach.

The problem with what you are choosing to call "moderate conservatives" is that they aren't any kind of conservatives, as Stronach has amply demonstrated. Remember Stronach? The Liberal? This is why conservatives fled the PC party after Mulroney, and refused to come back. And why the PC party never got anywhere afterwards. It claimed to be conservative, but had no conservative policies. So consercatives stayed away. It was really a Liberal party, but without the Liberal organization, and with a pathetic incompetent as its leader. So liberals stayed away. Now, thankfully, the liberals have gone on to the Liberal or NDP party, and the conservatives are back. And the Conservative party actually IS conservative, though not terribly so. It's not as far right as, say, the US Democratic Party.

As for civil wars, they only one I see is in the Liberal Party.

[scribblet]

Neo cons were liberals upset with the idealogy and left the liberal party to be conservative. Since then the term has mutated and is used to intimidate and of course, these days its meant as a slur. In civilized and respectful debate we should use the actual terms of liberal, NDP and conservative. I'm guessing if I used the term Librano, or Liebrals, I'd be jumped on, but its okay to use the term neo-con as a form of intimidation.

[Argus]

Can you believe that these guys at the Free Dominion. blocked my access to their forum? It only took 5 minutes. The site says that it only accepts pro-conservative discussion but it calls itself the Free Dominion. What a bunch of Twisted Double-Think Fascists.

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopi...p=604951#604951

Well, reading the replies to your silly nonsense, it looks to me like they immediately recognized that you would be nothing but a disruption, with babbling conspiracy theories and no possibility of intelligent debate.

The moderator here doesn't tend to be on-line as often, but I'm fairly confident you will be banned here before too long, too.

[tml12]

Neo cons were liberals upset with the idealogy and left the liberal party to be conservative. Since then the term has mutated and is used to intimidate and of course, these days its meant as a slur. In civilized and respectful debate we should use the actual terms of liberal, NDP and conservative. I'm guessing if I used the term Librano, or Liebrals, I'd be jumped on, but its okay to use the term neo-con as a form of intimidation.

I always used "Liberal" and never "Librano" and "Fiberal" and "Lieberal" and other nasty names. Now, as a CPC supporter I am being called a

"Twisted Double-Think Fascists"

NOT cool. :angry:

[Argus]

Man are peoples X boxes not working tonight?

Wellandboy, Scriblett and Wilbur should get something useful to say before they clog up this board.

I wouldn't worry about them. I suspect you'll be gone soon.

It is not terribly surprising that Stephen Harper has been to conferences attended by influential right-wing sorts. It's about as surprising as discovering that Paul Martin or Belinda Stronach are acquainted with other billionaires.

Hardly, I think you would do well to actually read up on the collective philosophies of the group that River is speaking of. He is pretty much dead on from what I can tell, I am simply surprised that such a direct link exisits between Harper and this group.

Excellent post River, I for one appreciate the information.

What direct link? He gave a speech to people. Apparently, so did Paul Martin. And this tells us what, exactly?