Canadian media trying their best to bury Harper.

[mikedavid00]

I wish taxpayers wouldn't have to fund CBC anymore.

Yes, especially now that they have lowered themselves to the level of reality TV broadcasting. What a disgrace. Of course I bet the more the CBC produces 'programming for the stupid' the less conservatives would complain about it.

Speaking of taxes, i wish i didnt have to fund an army tasked to protect a buch of islamic religious wackos in Afghanistan.

The government of President Hamid Karzai said Tuesday that it will re-establish something like the Taliban religious police, which systematically banned education for girls, anything remotely like free expression, the employment of women, the trimming of beards by men, even card-playing and kite-flying. The price of such "vice" was often beating or summary imprisonment, sometimes worse.

The announcement was the latest of Karzai's efforts to mollify religious hardliners and some tribal leaders, all of them eager to reduce the authority of the central government and to slow or reverse the progress of dangerous ideas such as equality before the law.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...23-e841f10322a4

Why should my taxes go to fund these people? Fuck em' Id rather fund the CBC.

Andrew

Keep in mind that it was Martin's gov't that sent them in. Everyone conveniently forgets that.

[AndrewL]

I wish taxpayers wouldn't have to fund CBC anymore.

Yes, especially now that they have lowered themselves to the level of reality TV broadcasting. What a disgrace. Of course I bet the more the CBC produces 'programming for the stupid' the less conservatives would complain about it.

Speaking of taxes, i wish i didnt have to fund an army tasked to protect a buch of islamic religious wackos in Afghanistan.

The government of President Hamid Karzai said Tuesday that it will re-establish something like the Taliban religious police, which systematically banned education for girls, anything remotely like free expression, the employment of women, the trimming of beards by men, even card-playing and kite-flying. The price of such "vice" was often beating or summary imprisonment, sometimes worse.

The announcement was the latest of Karzai's efforts to mollify religious hardliners and some tribal leaders, all of them eager to reduce the authority of the central government and to slow or reverse the progress of dangerous ideas such as equality before the law.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...23-e841f10322a4

Why should my taxes go to fund these people? Fuck em' Id rather fund the CBC.

Andrew

Keep in mind that it was Martin's gov't that sent them in. Everyone conveniently forgets that.

Granted. And originally there was a proper casus belli, and a legal obligation as an ally, to remove AQ from Afghanistan.

Harpers government reaffirmed the mission, and now we are just occupying that nation and not really promoting secular or liberal values. Democracy only goes so far, it takes liberalism (classical western liberalism, not the narrow liberal VS conservative liberalism of domestic politics) and secularism to make a nation free.

All we have now is a few Canadian soldiers getting killed, and a waste of my taxes, helping to promote a backwards religious government that has no interest in freedom. And that means we need to get the hell out, pronto.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Are you serious, or are you actually that ignorant?

Andrew

I was totally joking.

Sorry, sometimes with the written word its hard to tell.

Cheers,

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Mindless blather. The Left seems highly indignant at any political leader who does not express their open hatred of George Bush (who, btw, I have scant regard for myself). So Blair, Howard and now Harper, because they happen to agree on certain things have to be labelled as "puppets". Absurd. Bush has no control over any of them nor do any of them garner any real political capital (quite the opposite) in supporting him. They support some of what he believes in because they also believe in it, because they are men of principle.

Bush's policies have been mostly discredited, you yourself admit to feeling that way, and yet Harper shows up affirming them. Harper does not agree with Bush out of principle, he agrees with Bush out of a desire to further whatever domestic interesst he feels he needs to pursue. This is about his selfish interest to improve relations with Bush, when it should be about condemning the violence in the ME. Men of principle, yeah, right.

Hey, neither has the Pope! Neither has Lorne Calvert! Or David Miller! Where is Japan's plan? What about India's?

In other words, in what strange alternate reality do you come up with the idea that it is the job of Canada's prime minister to come up with solutions for middle east fighting?

So what, I want my PM to take the lead on these things, even if it is ignored. What Japan and India refuse to do is their problem.

Because that would be, like, real useful. It would probably not only end the fighting in Lebanon but all war forever. I mean, being how noble and righteous and downright holy Canada is. I mean, sure, scores of other world leaders have called for that, but if Harper does to it will REAllY COUNT!

Regardless if it is effective, he should be calling for an immediate end to the collective punishment (on both sides) that will only make matters worse down the road. Its not as if affirming the american position is really that useful either. Or do you believe in the fantasy that military force has ever worked in this region in regards to these issues?

And yet you just called for him to go to the UN and parrot what a bunch of people have already said. Would you like to explain that?

Canada has a long history of engaging the UN and working with others to find ways of dealing with these issues. The UN is of course consistently ignored on this particualr issue, but that does not mean we should stop trying. Its not like mimicking Bush is really going to lead anywhere.

Leadership is not taking the easy position and refusing to stand up to an obvious injustice. Leadership would be sticking to the principles of neutrality in the ME region so as to continue to promote what will hopefully be a diplomatic solution to this crisis. If we fall into the trap of thinking that the only way to solve this is by promoting collective punishment against entirely innocent people we have just become indistinguishable from our neighbors, and that is a bad thing, since as i mentioned at the start, those policies were long ago discredited, and have become an embaressment to most americans. Again Harper is just trying to curry favor in a desperate bid to improve relations so he can be seen as a hero domestically and win a majority government. He does not care about the Lebanese or the Israelis, he is just being duplicitous.

Forgive me if i had hope that Harper might reaffirm the Canadian values and position in international relations that was lost over the last generation, even if i did not vote for him. The last few days have shown only that Harper is concerned about nothing but our economic relationship to the US and he refuses to stand for anything on the international scene that Canada was once known for.

Andrew

[jbg]

Huh? What purpose does Harper serve anyway. He literally just repeats whatever Blair and Bush say, effectively reducing himself to the lapdog status of John Howard in Australia.

There was a protestor in Edmonton a couple days ago who had a sign: It was a picture of a miniaturized Harper sitting on Geroge Bushs shoulder with the caption, "Harper needs a cracker!" That pretty much says it all.

Mere rhetoric. I would expect the leader of a country that shares a common language, history and culture with the US, UK and Australia to hold somewhat similar views of the world. The world does not begin and end on the pages of Lé Monde or at the Sorborne. If it did, the world would have ended at Dachau, Buchenwald, Treblinka and Bergen-Belsen.

Are you saying Canada's natural allies are the Eurocrats in Brussels? Maybe, more likely, the mullahs of Iran or the imams of Saudi Arabia. For once, Harper's standing up for Western values and I'm darn proud of that, same way Bush makes me proud to be an American (though I did vote for Gore the first time around).

The absolute failure of Harper to present any sort of plan for a solution to this crisis is pathetic. He should be at the UN calling for immediate aid to lebanese refugees and for an end to the indiscriminate bombing on both sides. He should be a neutral leader, not a mere parrot of US and Israeli militancy. It makes me wonder why he would even bother to say anything if he is only going to fall lock-step in line with the US on foreign policy issues. Seriously, why would he even bother with any statements whatsoever, he could just ask people to watch a theatrical white house news conference for Canadas position on international relations.

Is a leader supposed to be a leader, or a mealy-mouthed "neutral"? I'm missing something. Again, the fact that the Nazis were defeated reflected Canadian and American efforts, as well as those of the British and the Aussies. It's called "alliance", not "lockstep". How much freedom does anyone have in Saudi Arabia to be out of "lockstep". How many "dissident" members of Hezbollah survive?

And you call him a champion of the people? How so? He is showing a total lack of leadership, a total disregard for international law and values, a total uncaring for the collective punishment being dished out by the Israelis, and he is a total failure in his first challenge in the face of international crisis. If anything he is revealing his true colors as a champion of failed american policy, and for that one has to wonder if he has any brains at all.

Collective punishment? In response to savagery? Are you thinking or echoing what someone told you?

I say we need to consider getting rid of this maniac before Canada becomes totally irrelevent on the world stage. If not we might as well lower the flag and start pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, for all the difference it makes to be Canadian.

Andrew

Canada was fast on a path to irrelevancy following Chretien/Martin's toadying to Chirac. Canada's heart and home is with the English-speaking democracies.

[jbg]

Bush's policies have been mostly discredited, you yourself admit to feeling that way, and yet Harper shows up affirming them. Harper does not agree with Bush out of principle, he agrees with Bush out of a desire to further whatever domestic interesst he feels he needs to pursue. This is about his selfish interest to improve relations with Bush, when it should be about condemning the violence in the ME. Men of principle, yeah, right.

How have Bush's policies been discredited? You would have argued, before the Wall fell, that Reagan's were as well.

Canada has a long history of engaging the UN and working with others to find ways of dealing with these issues. The UN is of course consistently ignored on this particualr issue, but that does not mean we should stop trying. Its not like mimicking Bush is really going to lead anywhere.

The United Nations was established for idealistic reasons at the end of WW II. It was supposed to abolish the need for war, and replace warfare and killing with debating. Something has gone dreadfully wrong, and the UN needs to be abolished.

The UN's budget is contributed overwhelming by such nations as the US, Japan and the UK. The US contributes about 22% of the UN budget, Japan 19.63%, Germany 9.82%, France 6.50%, the UK 5.57%, Italy 5.09%, Canada 2.57%, Spain 2.53%, and Brazil 2.39%. These nations thus account for over two-thirds of the UN's funding. The donor nations, though, have little influence over the spending of those moneys. Even worse, the recipient nations have no reason to be amenable to policy preferences of the donor nations, since the money comes from the UN.

Thus, the donor nations can do little about the petty, despotic and warlike nature of the recipients of aid. Vast Palestinian refugee camps are being sustained by the UN while their inhabitants see little but misery and propaganda. The people are trained to be literally walking bombs, on our dime.

Sometimes the Security Council, which in theory is dominated by "important" rather than "polstage stamp" nations passes resolutions that are actually quite fair. The fact that the US and UK have a veto helps insure this. The problem is tha twhen Israel, a member nation, seeks to enforce a resolution, only a US veto prevents a resolution from then condemning Israel. An example is Security Council Resolution 1559:

2 September 2004

Resolution 1559 (2004)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 5028th meeting, on

2 September 2004

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions 425

(1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September

1982, and resolution 1553 (2004) of 29 July 2004 as well as the statements of its President on the situation in Lebanon, in particular the statement of 18 June 2000 (S/PRST/2000/21),

Reiterating its strong support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, Noting the determination of Lebanon to ensure the withdrawal of all non- Lebanese forces from Lebanon,

Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon, which prevent the Lebanese Government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory,

Reaffirming the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory, Mindful of the upcoming Lebanese presidential elections and underlining the importance of free and fair elections according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence,

1. Reaffirms its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon;

2. Calls upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon;

3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias;

4. Supports the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory;

5. Declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence;

6. Calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all relevant resolutions concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon;

7. Requests that the Secretary-General report to the Security Council within thirty days on the implementation by the parties of this resolution and decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Obviously, Lebanon's territorial integrity is being undermined daily by Syria and Hezbollah. Israel is now trying to expel them. The UN Security Council''s reaction? To try to condemn Israel (prevented only by US veto).

The UN has clearly gone from being a debating society to a "hate the West" society. If tinpot dictators countries like Cameroon or Central African Republic want to criticize the West, that's fine (except in view of the non-model handling of their own minorities and own economy). The UN, put simply, has accomplished nothing. Moneys that citizens of democracies are willing to allocate to foreign aid should go directly to needy countries, if possible bypassing their governments. Let that aid money buy influence, not insults.

[Argus]

Bush's policies have been mostly discredited, you yourself admit to feeling that way, and yet Harper shows up affirming them.

Affirming what? Not all Bush's policies have been discredited. Many just have a problem with the way he's carrying them out, and the sometimes shoody, slipshod planning. The war against terrorism is not a discredited Bush policy. Being in support of democratic groups and against terrorism is not a discredited Bush policy. Fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over HERE is not a discredited Bush policy.

Harper does not agree with Bush out of principle, he agrees with Bush out of a desire to further whatever domestic interesst he feels he needs to pursue.

Politically, this is utter nonsense. Harper would be better off, in terms of local popularity, to take a harder line with Bush, continue to expound that phony, feel-good liberal "neutrality" that so many Canadians seem to feel makes us international darlings, and do nothing that could cause bad publicity. Blair and Howard have also taken popularity hits for siding with Bush. Both would have been better off, for domestic, political reasons, to oppose him, or at least be somewhat belicose and doubtful.

Hey, neither has the Pope! Neither has Lorne Calvert! Or David Miller! Where is Japan's plan? What about India's?

In other words, in what strange alternate reality do you come up with the idea that it is the job of Canada's prime minister to come up with solutions for middle east fighting?

So what, I want my PM to take the lead on these things, even if it is ignored.

And when has that ever happened? Pearson did it once. No prime minister since then has "taken the lead" in any foreign crisis. None have even been involved in any substantive way. We are not a player, not even a small player. Internationally, we are nobodies.

Because that would be, like, real useful. It would probably not only end the fighting in Lebanon but all war forever. I mean, being how noble and righteous and downright holy Canada is. I mean, sure, scores of other world leaders have called for that, but if Harper does to it will REAllY COUNT!

Regardless if it is effective, he should be calling for an immediate end to the collective punishment (on both sides) that will only make matters worse down the road.

Why? Because we have to once again express our nobility and self-righteousness at what others are doing? Because they're being (eek!) violent and stuff? We Canadians turn up our noses at such behaviour. We know that it's never necessary - even though, of course, we've never faced danger or terrorism to speak of.

Still, we know that if everyone just hugs and holds hands and sings Solidarity Forever all war and fighting will end and peace will reign forever. Right?

Its not as if affirming the american position is really that useful either. Or do you believe in the fantasy that military force has ever worked in this region in regards to these issues?

Let's see. It worked to keep Israel from being overrun a number of times. It worked to win Jerusalem. It worked to gain them secure and peaceful borders with Syria and Egypt. And ultimately, it will work here, as well.

And yet you just called for him to go to the UN and parrot what a bunch of people have already said. Would you like to explain that?

Canada has a long history of engaging the UN and working with others to find ways of dealing with these issues.

Actually not true. Canada has not been any kind of real player on the international stage in decades None of the oh-so neutral countries are. Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland? Nobody gives a crap about them. The players are the likes of Russia and the US, France and the UK.

Leadership is not taking the easy position and refusing to stand up to an obvious injustice

Siding with the US and Israel is certainly not the easy route.

Leadership would be sticking to the principles of neutrality in the ME region so as to continue to promote what will hopefully be a diplomatic solution to this crisis.

You mean make wishy-washy mouth noises without commiting ourselves to anything, and stand back so we can keep our pretty sandals clean? You call this leadership?

[jdobbin]

The tories won't touch the CBC until they have a majority.

As to my desires, I'd like to see the CBC done away with, and stringent new ownership laws put in place which limit media ownership to no more than, oh, let's say 20% nationally, 10% provincially.

That would mean that the present owners would have to divest of their holdings. Don't know how exactly that would work.

[WestViking]

Huh? What purpose does Harper serve anyway. He literally just repeats whatever Blair and Bush say, effectively reducing himself to the lapdog status of John Howard in Australia.

Harper is the duly elected Prime Minister of Canada whether you like it or not. Your vitriol aimed at Bush and Howard is completely unsupported leftist rants, and while you are entltied to an opinion, you are also entitled to be wrong and are very wrong.

The absolute failure of Harper to present any sort of plan for a solution to this crisis is pathetic. He should be at the UN calling for immediate aid to lebanese refugees and for an end to the indiscriminate bombing on both sides. He should be a neutral leader, not a mere parrot of US and Israeli militancy. It makes me wonder why he would even bother to say anything if he is only going to fall lock-step in line with the US on foreign policy issues. Seriously, why would he even bother with any statements whatsoever, he could just ask people to watch a theatrical white house news conference for Canadas position on international relations.

You should pay closer attention to those you disparage. Harper has made it very clear that Hezbollah must release the prisoners it kidnapped, cease its attacks on Israel at once and recognize the right of Israel and her citizens to exist in safety and security. It is by far the clearest plan for an end to hostilities to date.

And you call him a champion of the people? How so? He is showing a total lack of leadership, a total disregard for international law and values, a total uncaring for the collective punishment being dished out by the Israelis, and he is a total failure in his first challenge in the face of international crisis. If anything he is revealing his true colors as a champion of failed american policy, and for that one has to wonder if he has any brains at all.

Few Canadians share your views on the Middle East or your ignorance of international law, conventions and diplomacy. Many of us recognize the threat to liberty that modern terrorism and terrorist organization embody. We look to leadership with an international capability, but recognize that domestic affairs are equally important. Harper fills the bill and is a refreshing change from the self-centered amoral dithering of his predecessors.

I say we need to consider getting rid of this maniac before Canada becomes totally irrelevent on the world stage. If not we might as well lower the flag and start pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, for all the difference it makes to be Canadian.

Few of us define ourselves in terms of being anti-American. Those who define themselves by degrading others and the efforts of others are amoral, rudderless ciphers incapable of contributing to society or to the wider world community.

At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of snivelling brats.

[jdobbin]

Becuase they don't have a majority gov't. If the house votes, they will vote against the PC's motion because all parties except the PC are very left wing and are more or less in bed with the CBC. It's also too soon to do drastic things like take away the brainwashing of the Canadian people.

I don't feel they should eliminate the CBC, but rather just fund it down to 200 million. The CBC can then decide where to cut the fat (ie: spending horrendous amounts of money on International correspondents to run 5 min radio clips of 'The Unmarried Pregnant Women in Sudan'. Or 'A Small Russian Town's Power Shortage.'

It is probably better to cut it entirely if that is the intent of the Conservatives. You couldn't run Wayne's World with that budget. It would just be a waste.

[Argus]

The tories won't touch the CBC until they have a majority.

As to my desires, I'd like to see the CBC done away with, and stringent new ownership laws put in place which limit media ownership to no more than, oh, let's say 20% nationally, 10% provincially.

That would mean that the present owners would have to divest of their holdings. Don't know how exactly that would work.

Don't care what they have to do. Media ownership is far, far too concentrated in Canada. No one should be able to own more than one newspaper, TV or radio station in the same market, exepting specialty channels. If you want the honest truth, I don't even think people should be able to own multiple newspapers. I'd like to see all newspapers operated independantly. I recognize this is not particularly practical, however.

[jbg]

The tories won't touch the CBC until they have a majority.

As to my desires, I'd like to see the CBC done away with, and stringent new ownership laws put in place which limit media ownership to no more than, oh, let's say 20% nationally, 10% provincially.

That would mean that the present owners would have to divest of their holdings. Don't know how exactly that would work.

Don't care what they have to do. Media ownership is far, far too concentrated in Canada. No one should be able to own more than one newspaper, TV or radio station in the same market, exepting specialty channels. If you want the honest truth, I don't even think people should be able to own multiple newspapers. I'd like to see all newspapers operated independantly. I recognize this is not particularly practical, however.

That may be a bit too strict. You're markets are small. Easing foreign entry rules, and maybe further liberalizing CanCon would do the trick.

[jdobbin]

Don't care what they have to do. Media ownership is far, far too concentrated in Canada. No one should be able to own more than one newspaper, TV or radio station in the same market, exepting specialty channels. If you want the honest truth, I don't even think people should be able to own multiple newspapers. I'd like to see all newspapers operated independantly. I recognize this is not particularly practical, however.

My newspaper is now owned locally.

I think jbg might be right about shares being too jbg mightr be correct that very limited shareholding might not give media companies enough capitalization.

Another danger of widely held shares is that management often develops a sense of entitlement and abuse the shareholders.

Tough question, really.

I think most people would agree that to much media in too few hands can and does cause problems. Ottawa and Winnipeg still sting from the same day closing of the Winnipeg Tribune and Ottawa Journal. This was a monopoly agreement between two companies who wanted to have one market to themselves each.

[jdobbin]

That may be a bit too strict. You're markets are small. Easing foreign entry rules, and maybe further liberalizing CanCon would do the trick.

Cancon rules haven't hurt the profitibilty of radio. The costs involved for that are just not as great.

TV is the tricky one. I think you ease foreign restrictions and maintain Cancon rules. However, the costs are a lot higher and can't be recouped easily from commercials in Canada. It means there should be more co-productions and more export of product. And there should be less fear about Canadian themes. DaVinci's Inquest is a huge success in the syndicated market in the U.S. Several other Canadian shows are also doing well. It's good for Canada. It good for the U.S., one of the most voracious consumers of TV product.

[geoffrey]

Harpers government reaffirmed the mission, and now we are just occupying that nation and not really promoting secular or liberal values. Democracy only goes so far, it takes liberalism (classical western liberalism, not the narrow liberal VS conservative liberalism of domestic politics) and secularism to make a nation free.

You sound like one of those conspiracy bums that sit out on the street corner. How can we 'occupy' a nation that is begging us to stay through a democratically elected government of the people?

You are a selfish person if you believe that your so far above everyone else in the world that you just don't give a damn. It's people like that that have got us into the mess to being with, allowing poverty to flourish under totalitarian regimes. Free the people and their market and they will prosper.

[jbg]

That may be a bit too strict. You're markets are small. Easing foreign entry rules, and maybe further liberalizing CanCon would do the trick.

Cancon rules haven't hurt the profitibilty of radio. The costs involved for that are just not as great.

TV is the tricky one. I think you ease foreign restrictions and maintain Cancon rules.

The tricky part is if you allow foreign ownership, locally owned outlets would be handicapped by forced adherence to strict CanCon.

[BubberMiley]

You sound like one of those conspiracy bums that sit out on the street corner. How can we 'occupy' a nation that is begging us to stay through a democratically elected government of the people?

Wow, you have conspiracy bums on your street corners in Calgary? In Wpg we just have sniffers and meth-heads.

But no one's begging us to stay, other than the puppet government we're propping up. The rest will blow themselves up to get rid of us.

[jdobbin]

The tricky part is if you allow foreign ownership, locally owned outlets would be handicapped by forced adherence to strict CanCon.

If the media is licensed in Canada, the same rule would apply to the foreign owned as well as locally owned companies. We already have some American minority owners of things like Discovery Channel, etc. If Discovery in Canada was taken over by Discovery in the States, they would still have to conform to Cancon.

[BubberMiley]

If Discovery in Canada was taken over by Discovery in the States, they would still have to conform to Cancan.

It's too hot to do the can-can.

[jdobbin]

It's too hot to do the can-can.

<heh>It's never too hot for a cancan.

[pinetree]

Huh? What purpose does Harper serve anyway. He literally just repeats whatever Blair and Bush say, effectively reducing himself to the lapdog status of John Howard in Australia.

Harper is the duly elected Prime Minister of Canada whether you like it or not. Your vitriol aimed at Bush and Howard is completely unsupported leftist rants, and while you are entltied to an opinion, you are also entitled to be wrong and are very wrong.

The absolute failure of Harper to present any sort of plan for a solution to this crisis is pathetic. He should be at the UN calling for immediate aid to lebanese refugees and for an end to the indiscriminate bombing on both sides. He should be a neutral leader, not a mere parrot of US and Israeli militancy. It makes me wonder why he would even bother to say anything if he is only going to fall lock-step in line with the US on foreign policy issues. Seriously, why would he even bother with any statements whatsoever, he could just ask people to watch a theatrical white house news conference for Canadas position on international relations.

You should pay closer attention to those you disparage. Harper has made it very clear that Hezbollah must release the prisoners it kidnapped, cease its attacks on Israel at once and recognize the right of Israel and her citizens to exist in safety and security. It is by far the clearest plan for an end to hostilities to date.

And you call him a champion of the people? How so? He is showing a total lack of leadership, a total disregard for international law and values, a total uncaring for the collective punishment being dished out by the Israelis, and he is a total failure in his first challenge in the face of international crisis. If anything he is revealing his true colors as a champion of failed american policy, and for that one has to wonder if he has any brains at all.

Few Canadians share your views on the Middle East or your ignorance of international law, conventions and diplomacy. Many of us recognize the threat to liberty that modern terrorism and terrorist organization embody. We look to leadership with an international capability, but recognize that domestic affairs are equally important. Harper fills the bill and is a refreshing change from the self-centered amoral dithering of his predecessors.

I say we need to consider getting rid of this maniac before Canada becomes totally irrelevent on the world stage. If not we might as well lower the flag and start pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, for all the difference it makes to be Canadian.

Few of us define ourselves in terms of being anti-American. Those who define themselves by degrading others and the efforts of others are amoral, rudderless ciphers incapable of contributing to society or to the wider world community.

At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of snivelling brats.

Well said West Viking! Deserves repeating!

[mikedavid00]

All we have now is a few Canadian soldiers getting killed, and a waste of my taxes, helping to promote a backwards religious government that has no interest in freedom. And that means we need to get the hell out, pronto.

Andrew

That Martin sent in.

I don't agree with them being there either, but it was Martin who started it and the house voted to keep them there. I say, we should keep them there for this term only and bring them back.

I think it was typical vote pandering that got them there anway. I was amazed the morning I heard them announce that they were sending troops into Afganistan. I'm like 'Martin is the most sinlge retarted person beside Trudeau and Crientien.

[BubberMiley]

like 'Martin is the most sinlge retarted person beside Trudeau and Crientien.

Yeah, and he spells bad too.

[jbg]

Huh? What purpose does Harper serve anyway. He literally just repeats whatever Blair and Bush say, effectively reducing himself to the lapdog status of John Howard in Australia.

Harper is the duly elected Prime Minister of Canada whether you like it or not. Your vitriol aimed at Bush and Howard is completely unsupported leftist rants, and while you are entltied to an opinion, you are also entitled to be wrong and are very wrong.

The absolute failure of Harper to present any sort of plan for a solution to this crisis is pathetic. He should be at the UN calling for immediate aid to lebanese refugees and for an end to the indiscriminate bombing on both sides. He should be a neutral leader, not a mere parrot of US and Israeli militancy. It makes me wonder why he would even bother to say anything if he is only going to fall lock-step in line with the US on foreign policy issues. Seriously, why would he even bother with any statements whatsoever, he could just ask people to watch a theatrical white house news conference for Canadas position on international relations.

You should pay closer attention to those you disparage. Harper has made it very clear that Hezbollah must release the prisoners it kidnapped, cease its attacks on Israel at once and recognize the right of Israel and her citizens to exist in safety and security. It is by far the clearest plan for an end to hostilities to date.

And you call him a champion of the people? How so? He is showing a total lack of leadership, a total disregard for international law and values, a total uncaring for the collective punishment being dished out by the Israelis, and he is a total failure in his first challenge in the face of international crisis. If anything he is revealing his true colors as a champion of failed american policy, and for that one has to wonder if he has any brains at all.

Few Canadians share your views on the Middle East or your ignorance of international law, conventions and diplomacy. Many of us recognize the threat to liberty that modern terrorism and terrorist organization embody. We look to leadership with an international capability, but recognize that domestic affairs are equally important. Harper fills the bill and is a refreshing change from the self-centered amoral dithering of his predecessors.

I say we need to consider getting rid of this maniac before Canada becomes totally irrelevent on the world stage. If not we might as well lower the flag and start pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, for all the difference it makes to be Canadian.

Few of us define ourselves in terms of being anti-American. Those who define themselves by degrading others and the efforts of others are amoral, rudderless ciphers incapable of contributing to society or to the wider world community.

At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of snivelling brats.

Well said West Viking! Deserves repeating!

And a hearty American welcome to Pinetree and WestViking!!!

[August1991]

And a hearty American welcome to Pinetree and WestViking!!!

WestViking makes a long valid post. Pinetree then duplicates the entire post adding a one line comment. Then jbg duplicates the entire post a third time to add the "American" welcome above (whatever that is). This, on a Canadian forum in a category about Canadian federal politics.

If I were moderator, I would ban posters who abuse the forum in such a manner. In my book, forcing others to skip through useless verbiage is a cardinal sin. Learn how to click on reply. If you can't learn, don't post.

And jbg, do you have to have such a long signature?