Stephen Harper = George W. Bush

[Hicksey]

Hicksey

You wrote- " I don't revere the U.S. or even like Bush at all."

You should say of course if you don't like Bush you don't like the Republicans.

I don't know why you think like that though because our very own Canadian culture emluates the American one and in all the years with our close association with the U.S our sovereignty has never been threatened by any other country in the world and our lifestyles has only been enhanced by our U.S -Canada relationship but soured somewhat by the previous federal Liberals political actions.

I mean even in Quebec as elsewhere in Canada, the last time I checked they still drive Ford's and Chev's eat American style based foods and wear American style clothing and watch U.S. sports and U.S. movies and enjoy Bill Gates inventions.

I think we should remember the unique historical ties concerning our origins as countries are rooted from the same source as well as you say as being our most important economic and trading ally.

I guess after you look at all the facts maybe you should be saying yes, the U.S. is our best friend and ally and no other country in this world could replace that reality.

I wouldn't say I should be saying that I don't like Republicans. Most republicans are as angry with Bush over his many missteps as I am. Unlike US Republicans, Canadian Conservatives learned under Mulroney that you cannot cut taxes and not either cut spending or raise taxes elsewhere because Canadians will no longer tolerate deficits. And I think we'll see that in their budget. And then we'll be able to see the differences first hand. Besides, since "Ooo Scary Harper" has worn off this new "Harper=Bush" is just the new coat of bogeyman paint the left is painting Harper with. I think now that a lot of Canadians have seen that the picture painted of the scary Harper was grossly overplayed, they'll be more skeptical this time around.

On the lighter side ...

Mock Mastercard commercial for the Bush Administration.

Prescription Drug Benefit ... $400 Billion

War in Iraq ... $1 Trillion

Gold Plated Toilet Seat for the Oval Office Toilet ... $10,000

Not being around when it comes time to pay for it all .... Priceless.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's be clear what the bet is. I'll bet that in Canada, Tim Hortons has more revenue than Starbucks. And I'll bet that in the next federal election, the Tories get more votes than any other party, and more votes than they got in the last election.

No bet ! You're probably right on all three. My bet (which can't be verified anyway) is that there is more anti-Bush sentiment out there in the mainstream than you realize.

[Black Dog]

Aug91

Not true. Around the world, many, many people (particularly young) dream of going to America and seeing it with their own eyes. I would agree that English-Canadians are obsessed with the US to a degree that I have never seen elsewhere.

Only Poland and India have more favourable opinions of the U.S.than Canadians

Not true. It exists outside of the media too, in normal conversation.

re-read what I wrote: I said "largely a media pheneomenon." That doesn't discount the casual anti-Americanism you mention, but I maintain that the kind of hostility we keep hearing about is overstated by the press. People might grumble, but at the end of the day, they don't harbour serious resentment.

[Freshinit]

What is this about Leftist Canadians? Why do they question the patriotism of their opponents?

Harper and the CPC is left of the U.S. democrats, but by asserting that we (Canadians) are different doesn't make us superior. In fact, our moralizing and continuing assertion that we are better and everything the U.S. does is wrong, makes us definitely appear inferior.

Don't be so quick to assume. Recently Bush has made his own suggeston to congress to limit subsidies to big oil and gasoline companies. Even NDP leader Jack Layton commented on the new progressive thinking, and did not receive a similiar vow from our Prime Minister.

[Hicksey]

What is this about Leftist Canadians? Why do they question the patriotism of their opponents?

Harper and the CPC is left of the U.S. democrats, but by asserting that we (Canadians) are different doesn't make us superior. In fact, our moralizing and continuing assertion that we are better and everything the U.S. does is wrong, makes us definitely appear inferior.

Don't be so quick to assume. Recently Bush has made his own suggeston to congress to limit subsidies to big oil and gasoline companies. Even NDP leader Jack Layton commented on the new progressive thinking, and did not receive a similiar vow from our Prime Minister.

When are liberals going to be honest about the who is the biggest profiter from gasoline?

Oil companies make on average about 8%-10% profit on a litre of gasoline. Conversely, the government makes 42.5% profit on every litre of gasoline.

The government needs to step up first and half their percentage before they should be able to say anything to anyone about profiteering.

[geoffrey]

Agreed. The government needs to back off on the gas taxes upon taxes upon taxes.

--

On the topic of Canadian connections with Bush:

We've got two situations, a heresay inference that Harper talks like him sometimes (could be the Alberta-Texas thing).

And we have one of the best friends of Paul Martin, Paul Desmarais, on the board of Carlyle Group. We've also got Frank McKenna who's on the board there too.

So you tell me who had a financial vested interest in the US? Certainly not Harper, the guy isn't even worth half a million bucks.

The Liberals are way more tied to the US government in political ways and in financial funding of the war machine.

So really, this Harper=Bush, Harper will Americanize us, Harper will become Bush's puppet stuff is really all minor to the massive financial interest the Liberals have in US war policy and electing Republicans to office.

--

I sure sounded like a lefty conspiracy theorist there, kind of fun. Except all my info is verifiable.

[Leafless]

Hicksey

You wrote- " Most Republicans are as angry with Bush over his many missteps as I am."

You are basically angry concerning the $1-trillion dollar war on terrorism via Iraq.

I consider and support the War on Terrorism absolutely essential for the preservation of North America, freedom and capitalism AT ANY COST.

The U.S. and it's allies have been playing with 'kid gloves' ever since the war began to their credit.

There is no way you or anyone else can prove outright, just as I cannot prove at this time as a fact that this war broke an organized Arab terror strangle hold to break capitalism or to destabilize the world concerning Arab world domination.

It is purely a matter of personal opinion and I positively support the Bush administration and it's efforts.

[Hicksey]

Hicksey

You wrote- " Most Republicans are as angry with Bush over his many missteps as I am."

You are basically angry concerning the $1-trillion dollar war on terrorism via Iraq.

I consider and support the War on Terrorism absolutely essential for the preservation of North America, freedom and capitalism AT ANY COST.

The U.S. and it's allies have been playing with 'kid gloves' ever since the war began to their credit.

There is no way you or anyone else can prove outright, just as I cannot prove at this time as a fact that this war broke an organized Arab terror strangle hold to break capitalism or to destabilize the world concerning Arab world domination.

It is purely a matter of personal opinion and I positively support the Bush administration and it's efforts.

Going to war with a country that both owes money to your allies and has energy contracts that are essential to their supply is never easy. I support the war as you do, but fail to see why Bush couldn't negotiate a compromise with them to garner their support and have them should a littel of the financial burden. Right war, right time, wrong way to go about it. A trillion dollar war that could have been half that, out of control spending, tax cuts all at a time that cannot support all three. This guy is a neo-con if I ever saw one. Not because he went to war, but for his policies. He's wrong on immigration, he's wrong on the Dubai ports deal, he's wrong on more government handouts. He's wrong on a lot more than he's right.

Fortunately for Republicans, the Democrats have nothing better to offer.

[Nocrap]

Hicksey

You wrote- " Most Republicans are as angry with Bush over his many missteps as I am."

You are basically angry concerning the $1-trillion dollar war on terrorism via Iraq.

I consider and support the War on Terrorism absolutely essential for the preservation of North America, freedom and capitalism AT ANY COST.

The U.S. and it's allies have been playing with 'kid gloves' ever since the war began to their credit.

There is no way you or anyone else can prove outright, just as I cannot prove at this time as a fact that this war broke an organized Arab terror strangle hold to break capitalism or to destabilize the world concerning Arab world domination.

It is purely a matter of personal opinion and I positively support the Bush administration and it's efforts.

Going to war with a country that both owes money to your allies and has energy contracts that are essential to their supply is never easy. I support the war as you do, but fail to see why Bush couldn't negotiate a compromise with them to garner their support and have them should a littel of the financial burden. Right war, right time, wrong way to go about it. A trillion dollar war that could have been half that, out of control spending, tax cuts all at a time that cannot support all three. This guy is a neo-con if I ever saw one. Not because he went to war, but for his policies. He's wrong on immigration, he's wrong on the Dubai ports deal, he's wrong on more government handouts. He's wrong on a lot more than he's right.

Fortunately for Republicans, the Democrats have nothing better to offer.

And I'll bet that in the next federal election, the Tories get more votes than any other party, and more votes than they got in the last election.

I'll take that bet. Living near Trenton, the anti-Harper mumblings are very high, which is hurting the MP of the riding (CPC). He spoke publicly against his party's decision not to let the flag draped coffins be photographed, which I'm sure will not win him any favours with the man on top.

However, we are talking about Harper wanting to be like Bush.

Most, if not all, are blaming the Liberals for the comparisons, which is not exactly true. The one responsible for the GW comparisons is none other than Stephen Harper himself.

If you don't want people to compare you with George Bush, QUIT ACTING LIKE HIM. Harper copies his speeches, his photo-ops, his anti-media attitudes and feelings toward war. This unheard of ban of the coffins had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH RESPECT FOR THE FAMILES. If he thought that way, he would not be so quick to get Hill & Knowlton in there to talk about how the dead soldier felt about the mission.

The first soldier's dad spoke hours after in favour of the war. The next time, the immediate family wouldn't bite, so they interviewed a cousin or sister-in-law or something who spoke of his feelings about the important mission. Then they showed two female recruits, in perfect battle gear, talking about how 'excited' they were to be going to Afghanistan. Harper should know that Canadians do not get 'excited' about war. They know they have a duty but don't look at it as a thrill seeking mission. He went too far and knowing Hill & Knowlton tactics, I'm sure the two young ladies were actresses and their gear just show for the cameras. Trust me, I live in a military town and we are not that well equipped.

Let's face it. It really doesn't matter how the soldiers feel about the war. They have a job to do and do it. Asking their families to validate their role in Afghanistan so soon after their death is unforgivable and an American tactic. Harper should now by now that that won't fly here.

Also it is interesting to note that Geoffrey pointed to the fact that Paul Desmarais is on the Board of the Carlysle Group (Bush's cash cow) and is a freind of Paul Martin's. That may be, but the Desmarais family also contributed $20,000.00 to the CPC and Paul Desmarais' daughter is dating Peter MacKay!!!

Only the NDP was left out of the loop.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I consider and support the War on Terrorism absolutely essential for the preservation of North America, freedom and capitalism AT ANY COST.

ANY COST seems to sum it up. Billions of US treasure spent, thousands of Iraqis, Americans, Brits and others dead. And no end in sight and no functioning Iraqi government in sight either. And now the US might even to have to deal with a real threat, Iran.

[scribblet]

Trying to equate Harper to Bush is on a par with equating today's Tories to Reform - bit od a stretch to say the least. It is simply pandering to the knee jerk anti U.S. liberal attitude .

[quinton]

There are too many similarities to list between Harper and Bush

-both are evangelical Christians

-both think that "God" will save us from our environmental degradation

-both want to make abortion illegal so that if a woman gets raped she'll have to add to the 6.5 billion people already overcrowding the world.

etc, etc

[shoop]

Wow, so typical of the ignorant Harper haters.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why are you denigrating Harper for his choice of religion?

There is *NO* evidence that Harper thinkis "God will save us from environmental degradation". Better to attack the man, when the greenest PM in the last 40 years was a Conservative and Harper is determined to build on that great track record. Better that than the pathetic records of Chretien or Martin ... all talk, little action.

Take a look at Harper's record as Leader of the CA, the CPC and the Government. He has never mentioned banning of abortion in situations of rape.

Please keep your lies to yourself.

There are too many similarities to list between Harper and Bush

-both are evangelical Christians

-both think that "God" will save us from our environmental degradation

-both want to make abortion illegal so that if a woman gets raped she'll have to add to the 6.5 billion people already overcrowding the world.

etc, etc

[scribblet]

There are too many similarities to list between Harper and Bush

-both are evangelical Christians

-both think that "God" will save us from our environmental degradation

-both want to make abortion illegal so that if a woman gets raped she'll have to add to the 6.5 billion people already overcrowding the world.

etc, etc

-both are evangelical Christians big whoopy do, so what, Harper doesn't wear it on his sleeve, in fact its mainly people in discussion groups who seem to think its an issue. Both Martin and Chretien are RC's, and we know were their church stands on abortion and birth control don't we? However, whatever happened to freedom of religion ?

I've never heard say the "God" will save us from environmental degradation - please provide the source/link

Harper does not want to make abortion illegal, he has said so over and over again - what part of that don't you understand.

As far as abortion goes, one does not have to be a fundamentalist anything to want to see some limits on it. I'm not religious, I'm pro-choice, with limits on late term abortions.

[geoffrey]

Actually Harper has never advocated the banning of abortion ever from a policy standpoint.

People can have beliefs, that doesn't mean they believe they should be enforced upon everyone else.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Actually Harper has never advocated the banning of abortion ever from a policy standpoint.

People can have beliefs, that doesn't mean they believe they should be enforced upon everyone else.

In fact just the opposite. During the election he said he would do everything he could to prevent a bill coming forward that would put restrictions on abortion. That's called giving your social conservative supporters the big thumper.

[Hicksey]

Actually Harper has never advocated the banning of abortion ever from a policy standpoint.

People can have beliefs, that doesn't mean they believe they should be enforced upon everyone else.

In fact just the opposite. During the election he said he would do everything he could to prevent a bill coming forward that would put restrictions on abortion. That's called giving your social conservative supporters the big thumper.

That was a smart thing for Harper to say. Make it look highly unlikely, then leave a sliver of hope for hgis followers to grasp on to. Seems this Harper fellow can politic after all.

I wouldn't call that a big thumper at all. I call that pulling a Liberal and walking on both sides of the fence at once.

[KrustyKidd]

I call that pulling a Liberal and walking on both sides of the fence at once.

Correct. I am right wing and I won't vote for the Conservative party. They are simply doing what they have to in order to get in power. Personal convictions all go by the wayside as they compromise their beliefs to get a vote. Stronach was only doing what they all would've liked to do as the party simply caters to what they think will be different than the Liberals yet palatable to mainstream Canadians to get a vote.

I refer to the opportunists and I believe it has been coined since as 'Lib Lite'. It's also a true meter of how stupid and trivial some people are when they refer to this goat show as 'the extreme right'. They're left of center for crying out loud, just the way Martin was playing just before he lost the election.

I stumbled onto Free Dominion just before election time and got into it with some gent who was a stamped 'conservative' and expoused why I won't vote for those clowns. He stated that first, they had to get in power, then they could work for change. I disagree. You don't compromise your principals for anything and, as the 'Party of Principals' to compromise for political expediency is bullshit. Some convictions. Some 'extreme right' party.

[Hicksey]

I call that pulling a Liberal and walking on both sides of the fence at once.

Correct. I am right wing and I won't vote for the Conservative party. They are simply doing what they have to in order to get in power. Personal convictions all go by the wayside as they compromise their beliefs to get a vote. Stronach was only doing what they all would've liked to do as the party simply caters to what they think will be different than the Liberals yet palatable to mainstream Canadians to get a vote.

I refer to the opportunists and I believe it has been coined since as 'Lib Lite'. It's also a true meter of how stupid and trivial some people are when they refer to this goat show as 'the extreme right'. They're left of center for crying out loud, just the way Martin was playing just before he lost the election.

I stumbled onto Free Dominion just before election time and got into it with some gent who was a stamped 'conservative' and expoused why I won't vote for those clowns. He stated that first, they had to get in power, then they could work for change. I disagree. You don't compromise your principals for anything and, as the 'Party of Principals' to compromise for political expediency is bullshit. Some convictions. Some 'extreme right' party.

I vote for them because I could never vote for what the Liberals and NDP have to offer. In this country, neo-liberal is as conservative as it gets.

Get used to it. This is Canada. Even the conservatives are liberal. I like Harper some because his policies are more conservative than Tory governments past.

[KrustyKidd]

I vote for them because I could never vote for what the Liberals and NDP have to offer.

I voted independent as there was a candidate running here who was closer to my views than the Conservative party was. And, the fact that my 'Lib Lite' MP had made her first conservative vote to be in keeping with a Liberal bill - her own pay raise.