Harper's inexperience - this is serious folks

[normanchateau]

Hopefully Harper will govern with the same level of sincerity and consistency as he campaigned with. He is a good man who was not tainted by scandal. And he has my vote.

Harper a good man?

Do you think it's good that he voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation? C-250 made it a crime to kill a man merely because he's gay. Harper voted against C-250, arguing that it would be used to ban the Bible and would deny people the religious right to condemn homosexuality. There's a reason why more than 60% of Canadians won't vote for Harper on Monday. He's a religious nut. Most Canadians aren't.

Do you think it's good that Harper wants young people to obtain criminal records and possible jail terms for possession of a few grams of marijuana? You think this irrational position is good?

[scribblet]

Yes I live in the city.

Surely you reconize the low approval rating in the states. You must realize the Bush admins policies have caused alot of division in the american public, I dont see how our aliennation could be much different.

Which has zip to do with this election. Martin's playing the anti american card is pretty low and so are his supporters who use it.

As for Harper being a good man, he's one of the best, and a chance at some ethics and accountability in government.

[scribblet]

Are you even Canadian? Fuck-off with your anti-american bullshit. We are not anit-american. Iraq? ya their anit-american. Canada? Freinds. Real Canadians know this and I think emailforcanada sumed that up quite well.

There is a lot of anti-Americanism in Canada. They say they're against Bush and his policies, but you don't have to dig very far to get the sneers about cowboy Americans, about their gun mentality, about their religious beliefs, and about many other aspects of their society and culture. Americans are thought to be simplistic, uncultured and stupid, though that's not put in so many words very often. You hear it coming from the smug, wine and cheese set, but you also hear it parotted back by fairly simple and ordinary Canadians because they're regurgitating what Martin and Chretien and their type have been spreading around for so many years. I have heard from several people, young people with little political awareness, who rarely follow the news, in ordinary jobs, that Stephen Harper would sell us out to the Americans, be Bush's lap dog. Where are they getting this nonsense from? The political elites, of course.

I don't think Argus is confusing anything. In fact, I think he just about gave a perfect description of anti-Americanism in Canada. Primarily based on ignorance, blind patriotism, and (my favourite one) the left's insecurity that Canadians are so much like the Americans they despise.

I find that when I declare how much similar we are with the Americans how much better I feel. No I don't support all of U.S. policy and yes I am proud of Canadian sovereignty, but I am also proud of living next to the U.S. and sharing in their material benefits. I am proud to live in North America.

Hopefully Harper will govern with the same level of sincerity and consistency as he campaigned with. He is a good man who was not tainted by scandal. And he has my vote.

Well Said !!!!

[tml12]

Hopefully Harper will govern with the same level of sincerity and consistency as he campaigned with. He is a good man who was not tainted by scandal. And he has my vote.

Harper a good man?

Do you think it's good that he voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation? C-250 made it a crime to kill a man merely because he's gay. Harper voted against C-250, arguing that it would be used to ban the Bible and would deny people the religious right to condemn homosexuality. There's a reason why more than 60% of Canadians won't vote for Harper on Monday. He's a religious nut. Most Canadians aren't.

Do you think it's good that Harper wants young people to obtain criminal records and possible jail terms for possession of a few grams of marijuana? You think this irrational position is good?

I don't know much about Bill C-250, but if it banned passages in the Bible then I have some issues with it...

As for the pot, I don't mind the decriminalization of possession of marijuana. Most of us have smoked at some point in our lives and I don't believe it is the worst thing in the world. As I have said before, this is not a one-issue election and marijuana is not going to be even in my mind (or in my system... ) Monday.

[wellandboy]

Hopefully Harper will govern with the same level of sincerity and consistency as he campaigned with. He is a good man who was not tainted by scandal. And he has my vote.

Harper a good man?

Do you think it's good that he voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation? C-250 made it a crime to kill a man merely because he's gay.

I'm confused. I thought was a crime to kill anybody. Please clarify.

[tml12]

At a time when many observers said that Harper's own unpopularity hurt his party or that he would never win an election, I think taking some time off to decide whether he was really the guy to lead the party shows

(1) introspection and

(2) a willingness to consider the party's welfare ahead of his own aspirations.

In other words, two qualities completely foreign to Paul Martin Jr or Jean Chretien. So I suppose it's not surprising that a young Canadian such as yourself would wonder if that's a proper way for a prime minister to act.

If he questioned his own leadership for even a moment, he is not the man for the job.

(...)

Proper way for a PM to act? Well first off they are human. But showing weakness is not an option. Out of all the PMs in the past that I have taken note of.. I would say Trudeau was how a leader should act. I have not really liked a PM since.

I don't think spending some time reflecting on whether he's the man for the job is a sign of weakness.

A lot of smart and experienced observers said before, during, and after the 2004 election that Harper would never be PM. After the disappointment of his 2004 loss, how can you blame the guy for taking some personal time to consider the question of whether maybe they were right?

Do you really feel that it would be more admirable for a leader to pigheadedly refuse to step aside until power is ripped from his cold dead hands? That was Chretien's way, and look at the damage that was done to the Liberal Party as a result.

We didn't see Paul Martin step aside after his near miss in 2004 either, or even (publicly, at least) admit to giving any thought to the idea. Do you think Paul Martin will have the wisdom to step aside after this election, be it defeat or narrow victory?

I am old enough to know that this so called Conservative party is just another way of saying, Oldnewconservativesreformedandalliancedintoanewfreshconservativeparty.

I think that what Harper has accomplished, first in merging the old PC party into his own party, and uniting it into a cohesive party that is on the virge of winning this election is actually a testament to the kind of leader Harper is. By comparison, look at the "leadership" the other guy has shown. Martin's quest, over the better part of a decade, to engineer a coup-d'etat against Jean Chretien created scars in the party. Even 2+ years after Chretien's retirement we still have warfare going on between the "Chretien" and "Martin" factions of the Liberal party, we have Liberal candidates stripping the word "Liberal" from their own advertising, we have people openly organizing their leadership campaigns in the middle of an election.

Harper has taken 2 parties and turned them into a single and effective factor in this election. Martin has taken Canada's traditional governing party, an election-winning machine, and turned it into a confused mess divided by internal conflict and plagued by poor strategy, bad planning, and a series of errors.

At this point how can there be any question as to which man has stronger leadership skills?

-k

To reasoned minds, there's not. Need I say more?

No... ...and I REALLY like your signature...good observation!

[BubberMiley]

It's still a crime to kill him--just not a hate crime.

But I don't get the supposed rampant anti-American talked about here. Perhaps its a regional thing. I come from Manitoba, where North Dakota last year unilaterally decided to build a pipeline to funnel salty water from Devil's Lake into the Red River and Lake Winnipeg in contravention of the boundary waters treaty. Two weeks before they were to do it, they agreed to put a filter on it before proceeding, then proceeded anyway without any real filter. Even in that environment, I have heard very little (if any) of what I would call anti-American sentiment. I imagine it's the same in Alberta, even after the unreasonable cattle ban. A lot of people are anti-Bush, but so are a lot of Americans.

I think a lot of the claims of anti-Americanism are politically motivated to take advantage of wingnuts like Carolyn Parrish, and making it seem like a great number of Canadians think like her does our two countries' relationship more harm than good.

[kimmy]

Harper a good man?

Do you think it's good that he voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation? C-250 made it a crime to kill a man merely because he's gay. Harper voted against C-250, arguing that it would be used to ban the Bible and would deny people the religious right to condemn homosexuality.

You've been corrected again and again on what bill C-250 actually contained, and yet you continue to spread this fiction. Why is that, Norman?

-k

[tml12]

It's still a crime to kill him--just not a hate crime.

But I don't get the supposed rampant anti-American talked about here. Perhaps its a regional thing. I come from Manitoba, where North Dakota last year unilaterally decided to build a pipeline to funnel salty water from Devil's Lake into the Red River and Lake Winnipeg in contravention of the boundary waters treaty. Two weeks before they were to do it, they agreed to put a filter on it before proceeding, then proceeded anyway without any real filter. Even in that environment, I have heard very little (if any) of what I would call anti-American sentiment. I imagine it's the same in Alberta, even after the unreasonable cattle ban. A lot of people are anti-Bush, but so are a lot of Americans.

I think a lot of the claims of anti-Americanism are politically motivated to take advantage of wingnuts like Carolyn Parrish, and making it seem like a great number of Canadians think like her does our two countries' relationship more harm than good.

I have never specifically accused anyone here of being anti-American. The Canadian left in general seems resentful of the Americans, as do Liberal Party members.

The NDP I would not accuse of being an anti-American party. A few years ago I met Jack Layton in a Montreal bar and asked him how he viewed the U.S. and Bush. He said he was not a fan of Bush but that he was a friend to the American people and that he had a lot of left-wing friends there.

Although not from the left, I respected that answer. I respect Layton in general and I don't believe he would sell Canada-U.S. relations out for political gains like the Liberals are doing.

[scribblet]

Hopefully Harper will govern with the same level of sincerity and consistency as he campaigned with. He is a good man who was not tainted by scandal. And he has my vote.

Harper a good man?

Do you think it's good that he voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation? C-250 made it a crime to kill a man merely because he's gay.

I'm confused. I thought was a crime to kill anybody. Please clarify.

Harper didn't vote against 'including gay bashing etc. That is at best, an extremely disengenuous statement.

Bill 250 added 'sexual orientation' to the list of protected classes in the hate propaganda sections (318 & 319) of Canada's Criminal Code.

No one, including Harper condones in any way, the promotion of hatred against anyone or any group, it was the ambiguity of the bill which could silence legitimate discussions that was the concern. There is also a concern that this bill could lead the way to the bible being banned, or at least certain passages viewed as 'hate speech'.

In otherwords, Svend Robinson's bill was simply about stifling free speech and silencing opposition to his views, and opposition is about a loss of liberty and religious freedom. ( BTW, Martin promised to use the NWC to protect religious views)

And this is way off topic

[Hicksey]

Hopefully Harper will govern with the same level of sincerity and consistency as he campaigned with. He is a good man who was not tainted by scandal. And he has my vote.

Harper a good man?

Do you think it's good that he voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation? C-250 made it a crime to kill a man merely because he's gay.

I'm confused. I thought was a crime to kill anybody. Please clarify.

It's more of a crime to kill a gay man than a regular man I guess.

[BubberMiley]

Some feel it's more of a crime for you to kill someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. than to kill them for their money or because they're in bed with your wife. And, if you look at crimes like lynching, that may be a reasonable way to look at it.

[Hicksey]

Some feel it's more of a crime for you to kill someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. than to kill them for their money or because they're in bed with your wife. And, if you look at crimes like lynching, that may be a reasonable way to look at it.

So if someone kills me because in a white christian man, he deserves a harsher penalty?

If not it shouldn't be that way. If people want this kind of law it has to apply equally.

[tml12]

Some feel it's more of a crime for you to kill someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. than to kill them for their money or because they're in bed with your wife. And, if you look at crimes like lynching, that may be a reasonable way to look at it.

As far as I am concerned:

If you shoot someone, you are guilty of murder.

If you insult someone's race, you are guilty of making a racial slur.

If you lynch someone, you are guilty of lynching.

When people start playing the race card, i.e. like affirmative action (albeit that's a different context) we get a really nasty debate. Which minorities deserve more? Are Jews a minority? How do Asians fit in? Etc...

I know a lot of people who are visible minorities and homosexuals, etc. You know what they refer to themselves as? Canadians.

[Hicksey]

Some feel it's more of a crime for you to kill someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. than to kill them for their money or because they're in bed with your wife. And, if you look at crimes like lynching, that may be a reasonable way to look at it.

As far as I am concerned:

If you shoot someone, you are guilty of murder.

If you insult someone's race, you are guilty of making a racial slur.

If you lynch someone, you are guilty of lynching.

When people start playing the race card, i.e. like affirmative action (albeit that's a different context) we get a really nasty debate. Which minorities deserve more? Are Jews a minority? How do Asians fit in? Etc...

I know a lot of people who are visible minorities and homosexuals, etc. You know what they refer to themselves as? Canadians.

That's all we are. We're not African-Canadians, nor Asian-Canadians, Muslim-Canadians, French-Canadians, or even English-Chrisitian-Canadians.

We're all Canadians. Nothing more and definitely nothing less.

[scribblet]

I guess if a gay person is mugged its more of a crime than my little old mother being mugged, her life is worth less than his. But really, how do we know what a person is thinking when they commit the crime, aren't all murders hate, aren't all crimes hate in a way.

However Harper and conservatives certainly are not against gay people neither do they wish them or anyone else harm and to suggest such a think is ludicrous in the extreme. Its kinda funny that thats all someone can come continually come up with against Harper, oppostiion to BillC-250 and Grewal (like Grewal who )....

[Montgomery Burns]

A question was posed on TV to Harper about his foreign policy experience ( CBC Your Turn ). The question was framed in the context of dealing with other leaders who are vastly more experienced than he. What Harper acknowledged about his inexperience was even more concerning than previously thought.

When asked about his foreign policy experience. Harper agreed that he has very little.

When asked if he has even travelled internationally. His response was not much.... but... that he has been to Mexico.

In this day and age, it is critical that our PM have some experience in areas like foreign trade, international affairs and thre G8 summit.

This is a serious gap folks.

I seriously doubt that Harper said he had only been to Mexico, like you claim. Harper has been to Italy, Holland, Great Britain, Ireland, Greece, the US, and Mexico.

[BubberMiley]

I think he mentioned "parts of Europe" too, but it's irrelevant anyway.

[Montgomery Burns]

Hopefully Harper knows that Canadian troops did not land in Norway on D-Day, unlike Paul Martin who said Norway twice during that D-Day ceremony.

[tml12]

Hopefully Harper knows that Canadian troops did not land in Norway on D-Day, unlike Paul Martin who said Norway twice during that D-Day ceremony.

[Ginuwinemj]

When asked if he has even travelled internationally. His response was not much.... but... that he has been to Mexico.

Harper selectively told the media he has been to Mexico because he is covering his tracks. In 2003 he was in a secret Bilderberg meeting in Versailles France, these meetings are pretty controversial because the public and the media are kept away. http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bilderberg_2003.html[/url]

[Guest eureka]

And do you know what did happen in Norway. And, if Martin did mispeak, who are you who gets everything wrong to criticize him for a slip?

[kimmy]

In 2003 he was in a secret Bilderberg meeting in Versailles France, these meetings are pretty controversial because the public and the media are kept away.

Harper's presense at the Bilderberg conference should eliminate any worries over his international experience. After all, he's already part of a Secret Society with every important partner Canada has.

-k

[geoffrey]

In 2003 he was in a secret Bilderberg meeting in Versailles France, these meetings are pretty controversial because the public and the media are kept away.

Harper's presense at the Bilderberg conference should eliminate any worries over his international experience. After all, he's already part of a Secret Society with every important partner Canada has.

-k

Exactly, this gives me more confidence in him. Martin went to, they probably even sat on the beach. I hear Versailles is beautiful.