River_God Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn.…Having hit a wall, the next logical step .... is to .... begin building another home – a much more autonomous Alberta. ( Stephen Harper National Post, December 8, 2000) “First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it”. "God, will this problem between Quebec and the rest of Canada ever be resolved?" …God replies, "Yes, but not in my lifetime." (Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997) http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparti...per_speech.html “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) What the hell is Harper thinking about???? What benefit does he see in alienating Alberta and Quebec from Canada. He says it’s hopeless to make Quebecers feel happy in Canada and then makes it sound like he wants Alberta to separate too. The great relations between Germany and France today should give Harper an idea that Canada’s inter-provincial relations aren’t hopeless. Most Canadians see no benefit in distancing themselves from other provinces. Harper makes it sound like northern Alberta is repressed and would be better off forming its own national government. Oilsandsland ???? I don't know why all the conservatives on this site have so much faith that Harper has great plans for Canada. Why was Harper dumbstruck a few weeks ago when asked if he loved Canada? How long would it have taken Harper to profess his love for the USA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 FEDERALISM IS AT THE LOWEST LEVEL IT HAS BEEN IN YEARS. WHY? Quebecers were ripped off by the Liberals. The West has been neglected by the Liberals. If you don't believe it is time for fresh blood in Ottawa, you are a fool. "Why was Harper dumbstruck a few weeks ago when asked if he loved Canada?" Because the randomness of the question surprised him. "How long would it have taken Harper to profess his love for the USA?" He wants to have better relations with the U.S. They are our best friends and trading partner. No more Liberal lies and scandal and hatred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 FEDERALISM IS AT THE LOWEST LEVEL IT HAS BEEN IN YEARS.WHY? Quebecers were ripped off by the Liberals. Quebec has actually done very well by the Liberals. Pierre Trudeau and Jean Cretien were Quebecois. The West has been neglected by the Liberals. Cronic nagging is more like it. Many in the west don't realize that it isn't the government's job to give Provinces massive handouts on a whim. If you don't believe it is time for fresh blood in Ottawa, you are a fool. "Why was Harper dumbstruck a few weeks ago when asked if he loved Canada?" Because the randomness of the question surprised him. It was worse than that and you know it. harper is pissed off at Canada and he doesn't realize how good we have it here. "How long would it have taken Harper to profess his love for the USA?" He wants to have better relations with the U.S. They are our best friends and trading partner. That doesn't mean Harper should put US trade relations ahead of his love for Canada. The defence shield and Iraq war profitted no one. The US would do good to listen to Canada's rational approach on many subjects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 RiverGod, how much does the membership in the Young Liberals cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Do they have a 12 and under Young Liberal group? .... ...maybe that's why they are so intent on the Liberal Warehouse Daycare plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 This thread title is all wrong. Stephen Harper doesn't want to break up Canada. Stephen Harper wants to kidnap children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiraly Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Don't make fun guys.... ...the Liberals are carrying a huge debt and can no longer afford a Kinsella type to spin their strategy. Sad really that the once great party has now been reduced to this. Question is: How much are they paying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Kinsella isn't working for him because of Martinite spitefulness. Nothing to do with money. Don't make fun guys.......the Liberals are carrying a huge debt and can no longer afford a Kinsella type to spin their strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 This thread title is all wrong.Stephen Harper doesn't want to break up Canada. Stephen Harper wants to kidnap children. OMG, he plans to literally annihilate them, leaving empty black spaces. Perhaps using some sort of futuristic weapon, like a Point Singularity Cannon that he probably got from his evil neo-con buddy Richard Perle, AKA Darth Vader! -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn.…Having hit a wall, the next logical step .... is to .... begin building another home – a much more autonomous Alberta. ( Stephen Harper National Post, December 8, 2000) What you meant to say was: "partial quotes lifted out of context and twisted to mean what I want them to mean" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 l."Why was Harper dumbstruck a few weeks ago when asked if he loved Canada?" Because the randomness of the question surprised him. Randomness? It was a simple bloody question. One word answer: YES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 l."Why was Harper dumbstruck a few weeks ago when asked if he loved Canada?" Because the randomness of the question surprised him. Randomness? It was a simple bloody question. One word answer: YES. If you were asked 20 questions about your platform and then someone says, "do you love Canada?" would you be a little bewildered? Of course Harper loves Canada... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 This thread title is all wrong.Stephen Harper doesn't want to break up Canada. Stephen Harper wants to kidnap children. He wants to shoot em too didn't you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 This thread title is all wrong. Stephen Harper doesn't want to break up Canada. Stephen Harper wants to kidnap children. He wants to shoot em too didn't you know. And he eats babies!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 This thread title is all wrong.Stephen Harper doesn't want to break up Canada. Stephen Harper wants to kidnap children. Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. 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 seems pretty clear to me August. 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. Do you know that a start up job at MacDonalds in Northern Alberta pays $17/hr. No wonder these guys think they are so hard done by. Harper's relationship with the Conrad Black and Richard Perle indicates that maybe the whole thing is in someway tied with Bush's energy policy. Are Bush's buddies trying to get "freer" access to Alberta's oilfields? You guys should get serious and look into this instead of treating it like it is such an unlikely scenario. On the other hand, maybe you guys are on the payroll and like the way things are developing just fine. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 This thread title is all wrong. Stephen Harper doesn't want to break up Canada. Stephen Harper wants to kidnap children. He wants to shoot em too didn't you know. And he eats babies!!! After he shoots em Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 There are some moderate CPCers out there, but they're living in a dreamland where Harper is just like them. Even though he helped found a party in the 80s to do away with people like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 l."Why was Harper dumbstruck a few weeks ago when asked if he loved Canada?" Because the randomness of the question surprised him. Randomness? It was a simple bloody question. One word answer: YES. If Harper isn't quick enough on his feet to come up with an answer to such a simple question, he doesn't deserve to be Prime Minister.... Maybe he should get his coaches to teach him how to answer simple yes/no questions too.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblio Bibuli Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 l."Why was Harper dumbstruck a few weeks ago when asked if he loved Canada?" Because the randomness of the question surprised him. Randomness? It was a simple bloody question. One word answer: YES. If Harper isn't quick enough on his feet to come up with an answer to such a simple question, he doesn't deserve to be Prime Minister.... Maybe he should get his coaches to teach him how to answer simple yes/no questions too.... I saw Stephen clenching his fists when Martin asked him that. I was sure he was gonna slug him. It's like asking the man if he loved his children. Inexcusable what Martin did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 There are some moderate CPCers out there, but they're living in a dreamland where Harper is just like them. Even though he helped found a party in the 80s to do away with people like them. I agree with you completely Bubber. Complacent conservatives assure us that whatever happens, Canada has a strong constitution and the rule of law prevails. It's very scary that Harper and Richard Perle are probably in bed together. The Perle cabal in the US led the Bush Administration to withdraw from several international treaties, and contravene several international laws. Hawkish author Tom Clancy (Patriot Games and The Hunt for Red October) "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle. "Perle was saying how Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me." Lawrence Wilkerson, General Colin Powell's chief of staff until January this year, 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 Richard Perle would have been a key puppeteer in this Hijacking of the US Government. If Perle’s Network penetrates into Harper’s Government (see diagram above) Canada could face the same kind of neo-fascist hijacking that happened in the US. Bush (under the Perle Cabal’s Direction of course) was recently quoted as saying the US Constitution was just a GOD-DAMN PIECE OF PAPER. “I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush said. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” http://www.comlinks.com/polintel/pi051214.htm Remember how furious Harper was that Chrétien wouldn't let Canadian soldiers die "shoulder to shoulder" with Americans over Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction --- even when it was completely obvious that Iraq didn't pose any near-term threat to anybody? Well the war drums are still beating. The neo-cons still have Iran, Syria and Venezuela in their gun sights. How has Harper changed in the last few years. Probably not much -- though he may be more cunning. 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 It's hard to believe that key neocon puppeteers like Perle could change their philosophies that much overnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellandboy Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 It's very scary that Harper and Richard Perle are probably in bed together.[/b][/size][/color] This is just unsubstantiated crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 There are some moderate CPCers out there, but they're living in a dreamland where Harper is just like them. Even though he helped found a party in the 80s to do away with people like them. Harper founded a party to do away with people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson Johnson's quote speaks volumes about the neo-cons Argus. How do you interpret it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson Johnson's quote speaks volumes about the neo-cons Argus. How do you interpret it? Speaks volumes about people who criticise others for not shouting out their love of Canada, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson Johnson's quote speaks volumes about the neo-cons Argus. How do you interpret it? Speaks volumes about people who criticise others for not shouting out their love of Canada, too. Do you love Canada Argus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.