Harper and Richard Perle (aka Darth Vader) are soulmates

[River_God]

Perle and Black are clearly soulmates:

Both were Primary Hollinger Directors

Both looted Hollinger

Both are being charged in the US for looting Holinger.

Harper and Black are clearly soulmates:

Black's Giant Media Chain Backs Harper and continually advances the neo-con agenda.

Harper was at 2003 Bilderburg Meeting holding Black's hand along with Perle and Wolfwitz

Richard Perle quote: If we go forth, and wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us

Stephen Harper quote: Human rights commissions are an attack on our freedoms. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.

Harper being part of Perle's cabal is very scary stuff.

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

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?

The 2003 guest list includes names such as David Rockefeller, Richard Perle, Klaus Schwab (World Economic Forum), Henry Kissinger, the King and Queen of Spain, Paul Wolfowitz and a host of other bankers, corporate heads and royalty. Some 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

Attending this meeting wouldn’t generally be a problem, but Harper has a history of kissing up to the worst of these guys while smearing Canada in the process.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparti...per_speech.html

The Bilderberg group's secret annual meeting determines many of the headlines and news developments that you will read about in the coming months. But the Establishment media completely black out any news of it and remain strangely reluctant to lift the curtain hiding this major event. A number of high-ranking members of the press who attend the annual meeting are sworn to secrecy, and news editors are held responsible if any of their journalists "inadvertently" report on what takes place. Yet few have ever heard of this exclusive and secretive group of the world's most powerful financiers, industrialists and political figures.

After three straight years of open hostility and tension amongst the European, British and American Bilderbergers, caused by the war in Iraq, The aura of complete congeniality amongst them has returned. Bilderbergers have reaffirmed and remain united in their long-term goal to strengthen the role The United Nations plays in regulating global conflicts and relations.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?sto...Bsecret%2Bannua

Most of these guys probably have good intentions, but if they do wouldn’t it be better for them to advertise their agenda on a website?

In any case I have no doubt that Harper would have been hanging out specifically with Black at this meeting. Black and Perle were partners in crime it also highly likely that all four of these guys (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Conrad Black, and Stephen Harper) were in cahoots at this meeting.

Conrad Black (key Harper supporter and former owner of 3rd biggest media empire in the world, including the National Post and dozens of other Canadian newspapers) was working side by side with Richard Perle (architect of the Iraq Invasion, self proclaimed Darth Vader, and key pupeteer behind the Bush administration)

Both of these guys are being indicted over conspiracies involving Hollinger International

The amount of money stolen by Black and his cohort David Radler amounted to $400m, a staggering 95.2% of Hollinger’s net income for that period.

Hollinger went from being an expanding business to becoming a company whose sole preoccupation was generating current cash for the controlling shareholders (This same treasury plundering happened in the USA when the neo-cons came to power, and it will happen to Canada if Harper is elected. Remember how quickly Canada went into debt when Mulroney was elected?),

As a result of his involvement on Hollinger’s executive committee, uber-neoconservative Richard Perle, ‘The Prince of Darkness’, sometime Chairman of the Pentagon Defence Policy Board, may soon find himself out of pocket to the tune of 5 MILLION DOLLARS

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.

Complacent conservatives, of course, assure us that whatever happens, Canada has a strong constitution and the rule of law prevails.

However, the Perle network in the US led the Bush Administration to withdraw from several international treaties, and contravene several international laws.

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.

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 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.

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?

Canadians should get very serious and look into this instead of treating it like it is such an unlikely scenario.

Don't forget that even oil-rich Venezuela is in the Perle Cabal's gunsights.

[Argus]

Stephen Harper quote: Human rights commissions are an attack on our freedoms. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.

Harper being part of Perle's cabal is very scary stuff.

Boy. It's deja-vu all over again.

[River_God]

Stephen Harper quote: Human rights commissions are an attack on our freedoms. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.

Harper being part of Perle's cabal is very scary stuff.

Boy. It's deja-vu all over again.

You are acting like a neo-conservative extremist Argus. These guys (watch Fox news) attack any criticsim of the Bush Cabal with either ignorant indeference or absolute mindless hatred.

Fox labels the biggest capitalists in the world as left-wing traitors if they question Bush or support the Democrats. It seems far more likely that the guys at Fox are neo-fascist zombies that can't articulate their real agenda because rational people wouldn't accept it.

Politicians will probably always try to keep people in the dark if they think they can get more personnel benefit from manipulation, than from logic and reason.

It's obvious, however, open debate, democracy, civil rights and an independent media are vitally important to any legitimate negotiations.

Without these established channels, it is very difficult to determine if a movement reflects the public will or the will of a small faction of radicals. After the Nazis took control of the media, and outlawed all opposing political parties, it was easy for Hitler to manipulate and coerce the German public into following his orders --any orders.

Life can go from bad to terrible very quickly if people abuse power without any accountability. Many authoritarians have gone to horrifying extremes to hide their mistakes and to avoid being held accountable for their crimes.

Here is what a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury has to say about the US Patriot Act.

The Police State Is Closer Than You Think

The hysterical aftermath of September 11 has put into place the main components of a police state.

Habeas corpus is the greatest protection Americans have against a police state. Habeas corpus ensures that Americans can only be detained by law. They must be charged with offenses, given access to attorneys, and brought to trial. Habeas corpus prevents the despotic practice of picking up a person and holding him indefinitely.

President Bush claims the power to set aside habeas corpus and to dispense with warrants for arrest and with procedures that guarantee court appearance and trial without undue delay. Today in the US, the executive branch claims the power to arrest a citizen on its own initiative and hold the citizen indefinitely. Thus, Americans are no longer protected from arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention.

These new "seize and hold" powers strip the accused of the protective aspects of law and give rein to selectivity and arbitrariness. No warrant is required for arrest, no charges have to be presented before a judge, and no case has to be put before a jury. As the police are unaccountable, whoever is selected for arrest is at the mercy of arbitrariness.

The judiciary has to some extent defended habeas corpus against Bush’s attack, but the protection that the principle offers against arbitrary seizure and detention has been breeched. Whether courts can fully restore habeas corpus or whether it continues in weakened form or passes by the wayside remains to be determined.

Americans may be unaware of what it means to be stripped of the protection of habeas corpus, or they may think police authorities would never make a mistake or ever use their unbridled power against the innocent. Americans might think that the police state will only use its powers against terrorists or "enemy combatants."

But "terrorist" is an elastic and legally undefined category. When the President of the United States declares: "You are with us or against us," the police may perceive a terrorist in a dissenter from the government’s policies. Political opponents may be regarded as "against us" and thereby fall in the suspect category. Or a police officer may simply have his eye on another man’s attractive wife or wish to settle some old score. An enemy combatant might simply be an American who happens to be in a foreign country when the US invades. In times before our own when people were properly educated, they understood the injustices that caused the English Parliament to pass the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 prohibiting the arbitrary powers that are now being claimed for the executive branch in the US.

The PATRIOT Act has given the police autonomous surveillance powers. These powers were not achieved without opposition. Civil libertarians opposed it. Bob Barr, the former US Representative who led the impeachment of President Clinton, fought to limit some of the worst features of the act. But the act still bristles with unconstitutional violations of the rights of citizens, and the newly created powers of government to spy on citizens has brought an end to privacy.

The prohibition against self-incrimination protects the accused from being tortured into confession. The innocent are no more immune to pain than the guilty. As Stalin’s show trials demonstrated, even the most committed leaders of the Bolshevik revolution could be tortured into confessing to be counter-revolutionaries.

The prohibition against torture has been breeched by the practice of plea bargaining, which replaces jury trials with negotiated self-incrimination, and by sentencing guidelines, which transfer sentencing discretion from judge to prosecutor. Plea bargaining is a form of psychological torture in which innocent and guilty alike give up their right to jury trial in order to reduce the number and severity of the charges that the prosecutor brings.

The prohibition against physical torture, however, held until the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. As video, photographic, and testimonial evidence make clear, the US military has been torturing large numbers of people in its Iraq prisons and in its prison compound at Guantanamo, Cuba. Most of the detainees were people picked up in the equivalent of KGB Stalin-era street sweeps. Having no idea who the detainees are and pressured to produce results, torture was applied to coerce confessions.

Everyone is disturbed about this barbaric and illegal practice except the Bush administration. In an amendment to a $440 billion defense budget bill last Wednesday, the US Senate voted 90 to 9 to ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in US government custody. President Bush responded to the Senate’s will by repeating his earlier threat to veto the bill. Allow me to torture, demands Bush of the Senate, or you will be guilty of delaying the military’s budget during wartime. Bush is threatening the Senate with blame for the deaths of US soldiers who will die because they don’t get their body armor or humvee armor in time.

It will be a short step from torturing detainees abroad to torturing the accused in US jails and prisons.

The attorney-client privilege, another great achievement, has been breeched by the Lynne Stewart case. As the attorney for a terrorist, Stewart represented her client in ways disapproved by prosecutors. Stewart was indicted, tried, and convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

Stewart’s indictment sends a message to attorneys not to represent too dutifully or aggressively clients who are unpopular or demonized. Initially, this category may be limited to terrorists. However, once the attorney-client privilege is breeched, any attorney who gets too much in the way of a prosecutor’s case may experience retribution. The intimidation factor can result in an attorney presenting a weak defense. It can even result in attorneys doing as the Benthamite US Department of Justice (sic) desires and helping to convict their client.

In the Anglo-American legal tradition, law is a shield of the accused. This is necessary in order to protect the innocent. The accused is innocent until he is proven guilty in an open court. There are no secret tribunals, no torture, and no show trials.

Outside the Anglo-American legal tradition, law is a weapon of the state. It may be used with careful restraint, as in Europe today, or it may be used to destroy opponents or rivals as in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

When the protective features of the law are removed, law becomes a weapon. Habeas corpus, due process, the attorney-client privilege, no crime without intent, and prohibitions against torture and ex post facto laws are the protective features that shield the accused. These protective features are being removed by zealotry in the "war against terrorism."

The damage terrorists can inflict pales in comparison to the loss of the civil liberties that protect us from the arbitrary power of law used as a weapon. The loss of law as Blackstone’s shield of the innocent would be catastrophic. It would mean the end of America as a land of liberty.

[River_God]

MORE THOUGHTS ON THE PATRIOT ACT

All the Patriot Act pundits realize that it would be ridiculously stupid to catch a suicide bomber and, instead of finding out what he knows about other bombers, turn him over to his lawyer and wait six months for a trial.

In cases like that, it is probably justified to apply the Patriot Act. There is a huge danger, however, when nothing is built into the Act that restricts its use.

Besides allowing the government to tap phones and hack computers, the Patriot Act overrides the US Constitution and gives Bush the authority to permanently jail people without giving any strong evidence for the incarceration.

Consider that following 9/11, while civil aviation was grounded over North America, Bush’s own officials allowed over 150 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, and members of suspected terrorist network WAMY (World Assembly of Muslim Youth) to fly out of the USA, with very little questioning (9/11 Commission Report at p. 556, n. 25). So far, the Bush administration’s only comment is that this planeload of people was “beyond suspicion”.

Is that a good enough explanation?? What was the rush?!!!! Why was this a desperate priority?!!! Who got paid off?!!!! North American airspace was closed for several days after 9/11. Thousands of people were stranded in airports. Helicopter logging operations were shut down in remote forests. Many top level diplomats were not allowed to fly back to their homes and offices in private planes. But there was an immediate requirement -- and no security threat – to fly 150 Saudis back to Arabia in a jumbo jet?!!!!

I have no doubt that I would be jailed if I helped those Saudis sneak out of the country after the WTC massacre. Should President Bush (or President Kerry) use the Patriot Act to jail, without trial, members of Bush’s own administration based on the suspicions of complicity in the terrorism of 9/11? Should the Patriot Act be used to torture these guys into confessing to massive corruption and treason?

Even if Bush’s administration is completely benevolent (I personally doubt they are less self serving than typical politicians), what would happen if in 2025 a completely corrupt administration manages to get elected. Maybe they rig the voting computers, then embezzle a few billion dollars, are complicit in drug smuggling operations (remember the Contra scandal), kill a few political opponents and are doing a bunch of insider trading based on their future budgets etc…

If anyone tried to expose this corruption, The Patriot act could be used to label them as enemies of the state and torture them. Ironically, the Patriot Act could also be used to lock up corrupt members of the administration… Which is more likely though ????? What protection is some whistle blower going to have against these tyrants.

National constitutions were largely created to protect citizens from abuse from corrupt rulers. One of the reasons for invading Iraq was to end Saddam Hussein’s regime of murder, torture, rape, oppression and exploitation of the Iraqi people.

Life can go from bad to terrible very quickly if people abuse power without any accountability. Many authoritarians have gone to horrifying extremes to hide their mistakes and to avoid being held accountable for their crimes.

[err]

Harper being part of Perle's cabal is very scary stuff.

And the CPC wonder why most Canadians don't want to join in the USA's games.... It's anti-Americanism you know... we should be just like "our best friends and trading partners".... If they want to kill tens of thousands of people to secure oil for their friends, well ... aren't we friends... we should support them, no matter what they want to do...

... All under the guise of morals and "promoting democracy".... Ideals just like Harper's..

Well the Bush administration isn't promoting democracy for Saudi Arabia... In fact they have a deal with the Saudi royal family to use military might to prevernt democracy from taking the royal family's power.... (Oil more important than democracy)...

The USA helped overthrow the democratically elected Mossedegh government in Iran in the 1950's when Mossedegh tried to nationalize their oil.... they overthrew a democracy and installed the Shah of Iran in power because he would give them something more important than democracy and morals.... OIL.

The American spelling of Democracy is Hypocrisy. These are the kinds of values that Harper wants us to share... and not dare criticize....

[tml12]

Harper being part of Perle's cabal is very scary stuff.

And the CPC wonder why most Canadians don't want to join in the USA's games.... It's anti-Americanism you know... we should be just like "our best friends and trading partners".... If they want to kill tens of thousands of people to secure oil for their friends, well ... aren't we friends... we should support them, no matter what they want to do...

... All under the guise of morals and "promoting democracy".... Ideals just like Harper's..

Well the Bush administration isn't promoting democracy for Saudi Arabia... In fact they have a deal with the Saudi royal family to use military might to prevernt democracy from taking the royal family's power.... (Oil more important than democracy)...

The USA helped overthrow the democratically elected Mossedegh government in Iran in the 1950's when Mossedegh tried to nationalize their oil.... they overthrew a democracy and installed the Shah of Iran in power because he would give them something more important than democracy and morals.... OIL.

The American spelling of Democracy is Hypocrisy. These are the kinds of values that Harper wants us to share... and not dare criticize....

More hatred of the Americans from the odious Canadian left.

[scribblet]

And the CPC wonder why most Canadians don't want to join in the USA's games.... It's anti-Americanism you know... we should be just like "our best friends and trading partners".... If they want to kill tens of thousands of people to secure oil for their friends, well ... aren't we friends... we should support them, no matter what they want to do...

b]

More hatred of the Americans from the odious Canadian left.

Agreed, we might not agree with all their policies but they are friends and neighbours. You win more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

[River_God]

Harper being part of Perle's cabal is very scary stuff.

And the CPC wonder why most Canadians don't want to join in the USA's games.... It's anti-Americanism you know... we should be just like "our best friends and trading partners".... If they want to kill tens of thousands of people to secure oil for their friends, well ... aren't we friends... we should support them, no matter what they want to do...

... All under the guise of morals and "promoting democracy".... Ideals just like Harper's..

Well the Bush administration isn't promoting democracy for Saudi Arabia... In fact they have a deal with the Saudi royal family to use military might to prevernt democracy from taking the royal family's power.... (Oil more important than democracy)...

The USA helped overthrow the democratically elected Mossedegh government in Iran in the 1950's when Mossedegh tried to nationalize their oil.... they overthrew a democracy and installed the Shah of Iran in power because he would give them something more important than democracy and morals.... OIL.

The American spelling of Democracy is Hypocrisy. These are the kinds of values that Harper wants us to share... and not dare criticize....

More hatred of the Americans from the odious Canadian left.

Once again tml you are confusing "promoting democracy" with "hatred of Americans". Typical neo-fascist double-think

[tml12]

River,

The Canadian left hates the U.S. and the American Right hates Canada.

I am not confusing anything...we need a new, diplomatic relationship between Canada and the U.S., not Martin's hate-filled anti-U.S. rants to score cheap political points. It worked for so long under Chretien because of the inner hateful nature of the Canadian left (namely in the GTA) that one wonders for how much long it can continue.

The Americans are our friends whether we like it or not.

River,

The Canadian left hates the U.S. and the American Right hates Canada.

I am not confusing anything...we need a new, diplomatic relationship between Canada and the U.S., not Martin's hate-filled anti-U.S. rants to score cheap political points. It worked for so long under Chretien because of the inner hateful nature of the Canadian left (namely in the GTA) that one wonders for how much long it can continue.

The Americans are our friends whether we like it or not.

May I edit this and add the Liberals must be practicing the "neo-Fascist double think" you are so terrified of. After all, the Liberals (even Chretien) said soldiers and supplies to Iraq, a Canadian corporation is making most of the bullets for Iraq, etc.

Has the neo-Fascist takeover of the two political parties that will form the next government already occurred???

[River_God]

River,

The Canadian left hates the U.S. and the American Right hates Canada.

I don't know anybody who is anti-American, but neo-con fanatics want us to think that it's anti-American to say anything bad about any member of their government.

Look at all the politician bashing on this forum. By that definition, everybody here is anti-Canadian.

The fact that people are standing up to political decisions shows that they have faith that their countries can become better.

You are right though that people should be providing creative solutions to problems, instead of just mud-slinging.

The worst thing to do is to take a fanatical-reactionary approach where you end up throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The Americans are our friends whether we like it or not.

I sure hope this applies to the Perle Cabal Too.

[tml12]

River,

The Canadian left hates the U.S. and the American Right hates Canada.

I don't know anybody who is anti-American, but neo-con fanatics want us to think that it's anti-American to say anything bad about any member of their government.

Look at all the politician bashing on this forum. By that definition, everybody here is anti-Canadian.

The fact that people are standing up to political decisions shows that they have faith that their countries can become better.

You are right though that people should be providing creative solutions to problems, instead of just mud-slinging.

The worst thing to do is to take a fanatical-reactionary approach where you end up throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The Americans are our friends whether we like it or not.

I sure hope this applies to the Perle Cabal Too.

Much of that first part you wrote before, and I responded accordingly.

The Americans are not enemies to Canada. We aren't much different. I know, for the record, plenty of people who are anti-American and live the lie of the Canadian left.

What issues would like to have a debate on that doesn't involve a conspiracy theory that cannot be proven?

[River_God]

What issues would like to have a debate on?

CANADA

I would like to see live, exhaustive debates before all elections. Party leaders should be required to directly answer all questions.

It's ridiculous that, instead of exhaustive debates, billions of dollars are wasted on mindless lawn signs during elections.

Harper

Harper should detail what he means by this statement "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"

Is that just a call to allow vigilate governments to control each oil field and gold mine in the country? How is that good for the general population?

Iraq

I would like to hear clear, verifiable, statements by the Bush Administration about what their long term goals are in Iraq and How Iraq's oil will be managed.

I would have also liked to see the American's have live, exhaustive debates with Hussein before they invaded Iraq.

Saddam offered to debate, but the neocons chickened out -- even though they would have had the opportunity to go back, disect and dismiss each point that Saddam made.

Iran

I would like to read the full text of the Iranian President's speeches somewhere in the media (you can't even find it on al-Jazeera's english website) instead of just endless repetitions of "Wiping Israel off the Map".

[tml12]

What issues would like to have a debate on?

CANADA

I would like to see live, exhaustive debates before all elections. Party leaders should be required to directly answer all questions.

It's ridiculous that, instead of exhaustive debates, billions of dollars are wasted on mindless lawn signs during elections.

Harper

Harper should detail what he means by this statement "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"

Is that just a call to allow vigilate governments to control each oil field and gold mine in the country? How is that good for the general population?

Iraq

I would like to hear clear, verifiable, statements by the Bush Administration about what their long term goals are in Iraq and How Iraq's oil will be managed.

I would have also like to see the American's have live, exhaustive debates with Hussein before they invaded Iraq.

Iran

I would like to read the full text of the Iranian President's speeches somewhere in the media (you can't even find it on al-Jazeera's english website) instead of just endless repetitions of "Wiping Israel off the Map".

Overall:

Okay, I have no major issues but some general objections, namely:

1) No one could debate with Saddam because his stubborness and foolishness precipitated U.S. aggression.

2) Harper made those comments on national government a long time ago. Now he wants to be PM of this great nation and with federalism in the rotten state that it is in, I think we should give him that chance.

[River_God]

Okay, I have no major issues but some general objections, namely:

1) No one could debate with Saddam because his stubborness and foolishness precipitated U.S. aggression.

2) Harper made those comments on national government a long time ago. Now he wants to be PM of this great nation and with federalism in the rotten state that it is in, I think we should give him that chance.

1) The neo-cons were also way too beligerant toward Iraq. Just look at all the "intelligence" they fabricated to create fear and panic in Americans.

2) Harper has the chance to explain what he meant. He could also explain why his ideas have changed in the last few years.

With all the widespread doubts surrounding him, why doesn't Harper do this...........? My best guess is that we should fear the worst from Harper.

[tml12]

Okay, I have no major issues but some general objections, namely:

1) No one could debate with Saddam because his stubborness and foolishness precipitated U.S. aggression.

2) Harper made those comments on national government a long time ago. Now he wants to be PM of this great nation and with federalism in the rotten state that it is in, I think we should give him that chance.

1) The neo-cons were also way too beligerant toward Iraq. Just look at all the "intelligence" they fabricated to create fear and panic in Americans.

2) Harper has the chance to explain what he meant. He could also explain why his ideas have changed in the last few years.

With all the widespread doubts surrounding him, why doesn't Harper do this...........? My best guess is that we should fear the worst from Harper.

The neo-cons are the neo-cons...I have my own issues with them...

As for Harper,

He made those comments out of a complete lack of frustration with the political spectrum and how Canadian politics are corrupt. Given the record of Liberal and PC hatred for the west, I understand his frustration. I don't like how he put the comments, and quite frankly I think he should have been more careful with his wording, but he is correct that the Liberals have abused Canadian federalism.

[newbie]

2) Harper made those comments on national government a long time ago. Now he wants to be PM of this great nation and with federalism in the rotten state that it is in, I think we should give him that chance.

And yet you folks continue to bash Martin based on many statements he made prior to being PM. Interesting.

[tml12]

2) Harper made those comments on national government a long time ago. Now he wants to be PM of this great nation and with federalism in the rotten state that it is in, I think we should give him that chance.

And yet you folks continue to bash Martin based on many statements he made prior to being PM. Interesting.

State one instance where I bashed Martin on a statement he made before becoming PM...

[newbie]

2) Harper made those comments on national government a long time ago. Now he wants to be PM of this great nation and with federalism in the rotten state that it is in, I think we should give him that chance.

And yet you folks continue to bash Martin based on many statements he made prior to being PM. Interesting.

State one instance where I bashed Martin on a statement he made before becoming PM...

I'm not going to go on an in-depth search for who said what, but you can't deny that comments were made on this board re PM comments on same sex marriage, PM supporting troops in Iraq, his support of Charlottetown Accord, and many others, all before he became Prime Minister. In fact I'm sure your "search" team worked overtime to find conflicting statements Martin made before he was PM. All I'm saying here is that everybody says things to suit the situation at the time. Harper is no different.

[River_God]

Harper made those comments out of a complete lack of frustration with the political spectrum.

Harper is correct that the Liberals have abused Canadian federalism.

Why doesn't Harper speek for himself tml. Are you on Harper's payroll to speak for him?

“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… (Stephen Harper Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

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)

Harper's rhetoric only intensified between 1994 and 2000. Why would anybody believe that he is more reasonable today?

Do you know that a start up job at MacDonalds in Northern Alberta pays $17/hr. No wonder Harper thinks he is so hard done by.

I lived in Edmonton for 14 years and never had any problems with the rest of Canda. Now I'm living in BC and I'm still happy.

Any push for breaking up Canada is misinformed at best and, more realistically, driven solely by very selfish interests like Harper's

[kimmy]

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)

December 8, 2000 was about 10 days after the resounding re-election of a beligerant Prime Minister who had already spoken of increased distribution of Alberta's prosperity, ran his 2000 campaign in large measure by demonizing Alberta, and on the night of his victory he threatened Alberta with "tough love". In the context, rhetoric about protecting the province from federal incursion was timely and relevant. The infamous "firewall" letter included steps like opting out of the RCMP in favor of a provincial police force (like Quebec and Ontario already do), opting out of CPP and instituting an APP (just as Quebec has the QPP), provincial collection of taxes (as Quebec already does) and asserting more provincial authority in healthcare, as the Constitution allows. The "firewall" letter also proposed using the Supreme Court rulings that paved the way for the Clarity Act to force Senate Reform back onto the national agenda.

In other words, the "firewall" letter proposed that Alberta exercise powers already used in Quebec and/or Ontario (so how "unCanadian" is it really?) and using a Supreme Court decision to try to encourage national action on an issue considered important by Albertans but unimportant by a ruling party that had shown itself not only indifferent, but actually hostile.

Do you know that a start up job at MacDonalds in Northern Alberta pays $17/hr.

Do you know how scarce labour is in Northern Alberta? Even with outrageous wages for menial jobs, they still can't find people to wait tables or work the deep-fat fryer, because they can't get enough workers. And considering spiralling rents and inflation up that way, you need the outrageous wages to make ends meet anyway.

No wonder Harper thinks he is so hard done by. [/color]

It's not about the money.

-k

[tml12]

2) Harper made those comments on national government a long time ago. Now he wants to be PM of this great nation and with federalism in the rotten state that it is in, I think we should give him that chance.

And yet you folks continue to bash Martin based on many statements he made prior to being PM. Interesting.

State one instance where I bashed Martin on a statement he made before becoming PM...

I'm not going to go on an in-depth search for who said what, but you can't deny that comments were made on this board re PM comments on same sex marriage, PM supporting troops in Iraq, his support of Charlottetown Accord, and many others, all before he became Prime Minister. In fact I'm sure your "search" team worked overtime to find conflicting statements Martin made before he was PM. All I'm saying here is that everybody says things to suit the situation at the time. Harper is no different.

OK Newbie,

I am guilty to doing some of those things. My point is: I don't think it is fair to condemn Harper based on things he said while the head of various right-wing factions. I think we should judge Harper based on the platform he has put before us now. Today, I see a leader who is willing to stand up for federalism and Canada by allowing more of a "flexible" degree of federalism.

Historically, I have championed a strong central government. I still believe this is best for the nation. However, with federalism in the bitter disarray it currently is in, I believe there needs to be a new and revised federal-provincial relations. We need a new leader who will work with each of the provinces and whose party will work with the provinces to eliminate corruption.

I don't support all of Harper's platform. I am not extremely supportive of unregulated free market enterprise and am unsure how far Harper is willing to go to solve separatist issues in the country. However, I am willing to give him a chance because I believe it is what is best for the country.

The Liberals have governed for a very long time and have a lot of rhetoric. They ramble on and on but have not accomplished much. I want to see a fresh Canada. I want a new start for our country, a new direction. For these reasons, I will vote Conservative and hope for the best.

[shoop]

Good post tml. I have a feeling I agree with you on many other things.

A Conservative minority government will be the best thing that could happen to the CPC. Martin will stick around in a pathetic attempt to cling to power. The Liberals will openly engage in civil war, which only helps Conservatives.

A Conservative minority will let people see *scary* *scary* *scary* for the falsehood that it is and lead the way to a Conservative majority in 2008.

The Liberals have governed for a very long time and have a lot of rhetoric. They ramble on and on but have not accomplished much. I want to see a fresh Canada. I want a new start for our country, a new direction. For these reasons, I will vote Conservative and hope for the best.

[tml12]

Harper made those comments out of a complete lack of frustration with the political spectrum.

Harper is correct that the Liberals have abused Canadian federalism.

Why doesn't Harper speek for himself tml. Are you on Harper's payroll to speak for him?

“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… (Stephen Harper Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

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)

Harper's rhetoric only intensified between 1994 and 2000. Why would anybody believe that he is more reasonable today?

Do you know that a start up job at MacDonalds in Northern Alberta pays $17/hr. No wonder Harper thinks he is so hard done by.

I lived in Edmonton for 14 years and never had any problems with the rest of Canda. Now I'm living in BC and I'm still happy.

Any push for breaking up Canada is misinformed at best and, more realistically, driven solely by very selfish interests like Harper's

Per my above post...I do not know all the answers to your questions River but I do know that I am willing to give Harper a chance. He may not be perfect...and I do not agree completely with his platform...but I think that re-electing the Liberals would only hurt Canada.

I most certainly am not disrespecting your decision to support whatever party you see fit to support. If you think that re-electing the Liberals is the best thing for Canada, then I will support your decision and respect that you are participating in the political process. Not enough people do it... :angry:

I think we need relations with the U.S. to be better. I don't support W on a lot of issues and I am weary of neo-cons. Yet, the U.S. is our biggest trading partner and our best ally. Whether a Canadian is left, right, middle, or whatever, they can say they have friends in the U.S. regardless of which party is in power in either country. I don't believe in bashing your friend for political points...and I have no respect for the people who do it...namely the left in Canada and the right in the States.

I want a strong North America. I want a strong Canada. I want good relations with the U.S. I don't think any of these things are impossible...but I think for now, they are best achieved under a Conservative government.

[River_God]

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)

December 8, 2000 was about 10 days after the resounding re-election of a beligerant Prime Minister who had already spoken of increased distribution of Alberta's prosperity, ran his 2000 campaign in large measure by demonizing Alberta, and on the night of his victory he threatened Alberta with "tough love". In the context, rhetoric about protecting the province from federal incursion was timely and relevant. The infamous "firewall" letter included steps like opting out of the RCMP in favor of a provincial police force (like Quebec and Ontario already do), opting out of CPP and instituting an APP (just as Quebec has the QPP), provincial collection of taxes (as Quebec already does) and asserting more provincial authority in healthcare, as the Constitution allows. The "firewall" letter also proposed using the Supreme Court rulings that paved the way for the Clarity Act to force Senate Reform back onto the national agenda.

In other words, the "firewall" letter proposed that Alberta exercise powers already used in Quebec and/or Ontario (so how "unCanadian" is it really?) and using a Supreme Court decision to try to encourage national action on an issue considered important by Albertans but unimportant by a ruling party that had shown itself not only indifferent, but actually hostile.

If that's all the autonomy Harper wants for Western Canada I might even vote for him. His quote about multiple Federal Governments doesn't seem to wash with this moderate approach though.

“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" (Stephen Harper)

Considering spiralling rents and inflation up that way, you need the outrageous wages to make ends meet anyway.

My sister-in law is making $150,000 a year in Edmonton right now. She was offered $200 000 a year if she would move to the oil fields in Fort Nelson BC.

Two years ago she barely had a highshool diploma and was working cleaning new housing developments before people moved into them.

She is doing far better "making ends meet" than most Canadians her age.

It's not about the money.

-k

If you want to understand what is happening in the world, follow the money trail.

The people who profit the most from a crime are the pople most likely to have commited it.

From my experience, it's almost always about the money but I'll give you a chance to corect me.

[eire1]

I have seen this Bilderberger spiel elsewhere. Same old same old.