Harper is no Bush Clone

hiti · November 11, 2006

[quote name=JOHN IBBITSON

First, Mr. Harper is no Bush clone. There does not exist, in this country, a single hard-line conservative leading a major political party. Mr. Harper supports a publicly funded health-care system, a publicly funded postsecondary education system, a national welfare system, federal support for child care, and the rights of homosexuals to full civil unions with all of the benefits (though not the name) of marriage.

Too funny. LOLOL Of course Harpo is no Bush clone, he's just a Bush shrub and can't find the large hard right base in Canada that exists in the USA which will elect someone like Bush. That's why Harpo supports anything, publicly funded health-care system, a publicly funded postsecondary education system, a national welfare system, federal support for child care, and the rights of homosexuals to full civil unions with all of the benefits (though not the name) of marriage, that will get him the votes he needs for a majority so that he can dismantle Canada and turn it into his warped version of his extreme views. Just because the media is not bringing up Harpo's conflicting views does not mean they have disappeared.

Like voting against human rights legislation.

watching&waiting · November 11, 2006

Noramchateau You seem to be making people want to hate you and it is working. Without having to go inot the real ins and outs of this you have just refussed to see what are the very truths that people have taken the time and care to point out to you. You just try to brush them off as if the y dandruff on your sleeve. I assume by the way you are posting that gay rights are your top priority in all things governments. I am not sure if that makes you gay or that it just make you appear gay. But that shoudl not really matter, as either way you still have the same rights that any person enjoys. But you need to open the scope of your mind to what things really are about. This thread has nothing to do with Gay rights or any of the things you have hijacked it for. Please get back on topic or refuse to post that is a choice of two and there is no third about gay issues.

hiti · November 11, 2006

Noramchateau You seem to be making people want to hate you and it is working. Without having to go inot the real ins and outs of this you have just refussed to see what are the very truths that people have taken the time and care to point out to you. You just try to brush them off as if the y dandruff on your sleeve. I assume by the way you are posting that gay rights are your top priority in all things governments. I am not sure if that makes you gay or that it just make you appear gay. But that shoudl not really matter, as either way you still have the same rights that any person enjoys. But you need to open the scope of your mind to what things really are about. This thread has nothing to do with Gay rights or any of the things you have hijacked it for. Please get back on topic or refuse to post that is a choice of two and there is no third about gay issues.

Never bothered to read the info supplied with the link, eh?

scribblet · November 11, 2006

Too funny. LOLOL Of course Harpo is no Bush clone, he's just a Bush shrub and can't find the large hard right base in Canada that exists in the USA which will elect someone like Bush. That's why Harpo supports anything, publicly funded health-care system, a publicly funded postsecondary education system, a national welfare system, federal support for child care, and the rights of homosexuals to full civil unions with all of the benefits (though not the name) of marriage, that will get him the votes he needs for a majority so that he can dismantle Canada and turn it into his warped version of his extreme views. Just because the media is not bringing up Harpo's conflicting views does not mean they have disappeared.
Like voting against human rights legislation.

Too funny, another example of extremist anti American simplistic rhetoric manifesting itself into a hatred of Harper (who we know beat out Stockwell Day don't we Hiti the reason for the blind hatred). Not to mention simple minded name calling - Bush shrub whatever doesn't lend any credibility to your argument.

Health care: Bush opposes medicare. Harper supports it.

Abortion: Bush is anti-abortion. Harper has promised not to try to recriminalize abortion during this Parliament.

<A

Same-sex marriage: Bush opposes same-sex marriage and backed a failed constitutional amendment to ban it. Harper opposes same-sex marriage and has pledged a free Commons vote on whether the law legalizing it should be reopened. But Harper also supports civil unions — the same position Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry had in the 2004 election.

Supreme Court appointments: Bush recently appointed two conservatives to the U.S. high court. Harper named his first appointee from a list of three originally chosen by Paul Martin.

Death penalty: Bush supports it. Harper has no plans to re-introduce it.

War on terror: Bush sent U.S. troops to Iraq. Harper has said he won’t send Canadian troops to Iraq.

Ballistic Missile Defence: Bush wants Canada to sign the BMD treaty. Harper says he won’t sign it at this time, although he understands U.S. concerns.

Of course, Harper and Bush agree on some things...

Kyoto: Both say the global warming treaty sets unrealistic targets for cutting greenhouse gases and have refused to endorse it.

Mideast: Both are strong supporters of Israel.

Defence: Both believe in a robust military.

But Harper also supports many positions Canadian Liberals held until recently. A few years ago, most Liberals, including Martin, voted to defend the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. (Then they changed their minds.) Even some Liberals attacked Martin, when he was PM for his ever-changing positions on Iraq, Kyoto and BMD, arguing he at first supported the Iraq war and BMD and was anti-Kyoto, before flip-flopping on all of them.

As for our military mission in Kandahar, the Grits chose that.

Today, Liberals and NDPers claim the only thing keeping Harper from imposing his right-wing “hidden agenda” is his lack of a Parliamentary majority and that if he gets one, the “real” Harper will come out — privatizing medicare, banning abortions, restoring the death penalty, sending homosexuals back into the closet, etc.

More silly rhetoric. Fact is, Canada’s mainstream political culture is more liberal than that of the U.S., something any Conservative leader must accept if he or she wants to be PM.

Best to look at the facts instead of fearmongering and smear tactics.

Ricki Bobbi · November 11, 2006

That's why Harpo supports anything, publicly funded health-care system, a publicly funded postsecondary education system, a national welfare system, federal support for child care, and the rights of homosexuals to full civil unions with all of the benefits (though not the name) of marriage, that will get him the votes he needs for a majority so that he can dismantle Canada and turn it into his warped version of his extreme views. Just because the media is not bringing up Harpo's conflicting views does not mean they have disappeared.

So *scary* *scary* *scary* is not working now because the media is not performing its duties correctly at the moment?

Will you blame the media when the Conservatives win a majority in the spring? :lol:

Canadian Blue · November 11, 2006

People, I just found a video linking Canada to the invasion of Iraq, and I'm certain Harper has something to gain from it.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/in...?ml_video=12631

Pretty scary stuff, I think we need a full inquiry into the actions of Harper during this time, and what links he has to this man who profited off the war in Iraq.

Just because the media is not bringing up Harpo's conflicting views does not mean they have disappeared.

Harpo-Oprah, yet another link to Harper's secret relationship with the States.

normanchateau · November 11, 2006

Noramchateau You seem to be making people want to hate you and it is working.

I'm sorry that stating the truth about Mr. Harper makes people want to hate me. He did vote against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 states, among other things, that killing lesbians and gays is a hate crime. I've provided the link. Have you read it and if so, what have I said that's untrue?

Alexandra · November 12, 2006

I'm sorry that stating the truth about Mr. Harper makes people want to hate me. He did vote against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 states, among other things, that killing lesbians and gays is a hate crime. I've provided the link. Have you read it and if so, what have I said that's untrue?

How many gay and lesbian killings in Canada since adoption of Bill-250 was enacted have the courts proclaimed were hate crimes?

In Vancouver one judge refused to declare a stanley park gay murder as a hate crime. The gay-lesbian activists were outraged by this judgment at the time. The judge found no evidence this gay murder was, in fact, a hate crime under the criminal code of British Columbia. A 'provincial' court.

Why do you think the judge reached the conclusion he did Normanchateau and were you as outraged by his decision as you are about Harper's decision against including sexual orientation in the hate speech Bill?

.

Canadian Blue · November 12, 2006

I'm sorry that stating the truth about Mr. Harper makes people want to hate me. He did vote against Bill C-250. Bill C-250 states, among other things, that killing lesbians and gays is a hate crime. I've provided the link. Have you read it and if so, what have I said that's untrue?

Same with civil libertarians, and the ACLU, who all make people want to kill gays apparently :rolleyes: .

Here is what Bill C-250 would do, it would restrict "hate speech" against homosexuals. Harper isn't making people hate you. Bill C-250 could also trample on freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion.

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

Why do you think the judge reached the conclusion he did Normanchateau and were you as outraged by his decision as you are about Harper's decision against including sexual orientation in the hate speech Bill?

The judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the killer(s) knew that the victim was homosexual.

I don't believe people should be convicted of a crime if there is insufficient evidence.

Canadian Blue · November 12, 2006

Once again, here was Harper's position when he was running for the Alliance.

I was the founding policy officer of the Reform Party, and I thought we had some of the right formulae there. I think that very sensitive and clearly religious denominational moral issues should not be issues of party policy, and the leader should be careful not to make his views the central issue. I think those issues should be left to free vote in the Commons. I think they should come up at the initiation of private members, and I think we can look at the citizenry raising them in a democratic process. But I've been very clear in this campaign - I don't believe the party should have a position on abortion. I don't believe an Alliance government should sponsor legislation on abortion or a referendum on abortion. Even in a conservative party there are going to be wide differences of opinion on a question like that.

Because I'm running for the leadership, I tend to not spend a lot of time discussing these issues, because of the danger that the leaders' views become the party's views. My own views on abortion, I'm not on either pole of that and neither of the interest groups on either end of this issue would probably be comfortable with my views. I just leave it there.

Harper reportedly owns a large vinyl record collection and is an avid fan of The Beatles and AC/DC.[

Would an avid religious extremist listen to Anti Christ Devil Child :lol: :lol:

He remained prominent in the Reform Party's national organization in his role as policy chief, encouraging the party to expand beyond its Western base and arguing that strictly regional parties were at risk of being taken over by radical elements.[10] He delivered a speech at the Reform Party's 1991 national convention which condemned extremist views.[11]
At the Reform Party's 1994 policy convention, Harper was part of a small minority of delegates who voted against restricting the definition of marriage to "the union of one man and one woman".[19] He actually opposed both same-sex marriage and mandated benefits for same-sex couples, but argued that political parties should refrain from taking official positions on these and other issues of conscience.[20]

Harper endorsed Tom Long for the leadership, arguing that Long was best suited to take support from the Progressive Conservative Party.[30] When Day placed first on the first ballot, Harper said that the Canadian Alliance was shifting "more towards being a party of the religious right".

Once again, it is odd that somebody who had shown opposition to religion and social conservatism being at the core of party politics would have a sudden change of heart.

Ricki Bobbi · November 12, 2006

Once again, it is odd that somebody who had shown opposition to religion and social conservatism being at the core of party politics would have a sudden change of heart.

The core of party politics?

People's positions change.

During the last Liberal leadership Paul Martin said he was definitely not in favour of SSM.

Times change. People change their minds.

Please keep trying to push *scary* *scary* *scary*.

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

Once again, it is odd that somebody who had shown opposition to religion and social conservatism being at the core of party politics would have a sudden change of heart.

Times change. People change their minds.

I agree. Even Harper flipflopped completely on Medicare. For years he opposed it but suddenly, in April, 2005, he favoured it. In 2003, he said the Canada Health Act should be scrapped. In 2001, he urged Alberta to drop out of Medicare. Here's the link:

http://www.tommydouglas.ca/research/200504

The question remains whether the flipflop was sincere or was it a policy change essential to getting elected.

I suspect the latter but I could be wrong.

Ricki Bobbi · November 12, 2006

The question remains whether the flipflop was sincere or was it a policy change essential to getting elected.
I suspect the latter but I could be wrong.

That is the Martin flipflop on SSM you are talking about? Isn't it?

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

The question remains whether the flipflop was sincere or was it a policy change essential to getting elected.
I suspect the latter but I could be wrong.

That is the Martin flipflop on SSM you are talking about? Isn't it?

No doubt about it. The same criticism can be levelled at Martin for his flipflop on SSM.

Ricki Bobbi · November 12, 2006

No doubt about it. The same criticism can be levelled at Martin for his flipflop on SSM.

So be it. The Canadian right spent far too long winning the "moral victory" only to lose elections because of Liberal flip flops.

If Joe Who would have been a little less principled, and a little more focused on holding power, in the budget 1980 we could have been spared the last four years of Trudeaus reign of error.

If Preston Manning had been a little less principled in the 1997 election he could have held Chretien to a minority which would have lead to his ouster far earlier...

I'd much rather see these *flip flops* than have Harper hand power back to Dion, or Iggy or whoever wins next month.

Canadian Blue · November 12, 2006

Norman, I think that the Harper bashing is just getting really old.

As for Alberta opting out of the Alberta Health Act. That wasn't a call for the death of medicare, as much as a sign that Ottawa should allow provinces to experiment with private care as long as people could still get full medical coverage.

I think if Manning had stayed on course with what the originial Reform platform was the party would have been much more successful. It got too mired in social conservatism, which didn't help the cause of the party. I wonder what would have happened if Harper had run for the PC's in 98 as many were hoping he would do.

scribblet · November 12, 2006

I think the Harper bashing is desperation from those who can no longer use the 'scary scary' theme; people are now aware that it doesn't cut any ice these days - the sky isn't falling in, so they have to try another tack. Mind you, I doubt that much anything will change the anti-Harper - If Harper did it - it must be bad syndrome.

What is reprehensible and despicable is the not so covert accusations that Harper is a homophobe, that he approves of gay bashing including killing of gays. This over the top hypobole (could it be 'hate speech') is designed to pervert the actual reasons for voting against C-250 .

There is a big difference between critique of policies/parties and smear campaigns which distort and pervert intent and actions.

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

What is reprehensible and despicable is the not so covert accusations that Harper is a homophobe, that he approves of gay bashing including killing of gays. This over the top hypobole (could it be 'hate speech') is designed to pervert the actual reasons for voting against C-250 .

I think you mean hyperbole. Hypobole means precisely the opposite.

I have never accused Harper of approving of gay bashing including killing of gays. Such an accusation would indeed be reprehensible and despicable. I have, however, pointed out that he voted against legislation which made it a hate crime to kill people based on their sexual orientation. I have never suggested that he voted against this legislation because he approves of such criminal behaviour.

Is he a homophobe? I suppose you and I could look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. Some would argue that wanting to take away a lesbian's right to marry suggests homophobia. Others would disagree. Some would argue that voting against making the killing of homosexuals a hate crime suggests homophobia. Some would disagree. Some would argue that the homophobic comments Stephen Harper made in Parliament about Svend Robinson (Harper later apologized for these comments) suggest homophobia. Some would disagree and defend those comments as harmless humour just as Peter MacKay's comments were defended by some as not being sexist.

scribblet · November 12, 2006

I do not consider Harper a 'homophobe' nor anyone else who objects to SSM or voted against C-250.

The word homophobia is a construct utilized by homosexuals and the left to stifle legitimate dissent and limit freedom of speech, it has become a very effective weapon mainly used as a pejorative to dismiss a valid or legitimate argument.

If I accept that there is such a thing as homophia I would apply it to people who would go out and bash gays, or actively promote hatred and violence against them. I do not consider objecting to SSM as gay bashing.

normanchateau · November 12, 2006

I do not consider Harper a 'homophobe' nor anyone else who objects to SSM or voted against C-250.
The word homophobia is a construct utilized by homosexuals and the left to stifle legitimate dissent and limit freedom of speech, it has become a very effective weapon mainly used as a pejorative to dismiss a valid or legitimate argument.

How about ridiculing a homosexual opposition member in parliament, as Harper did, by making a joke alluding to his sexual orientation? Is that homophobia or just totally inappropriate behaviour?

Ricki Bobbi · November 12, 2006

How about ridiculing a homosexual opposition member in parliament, as Harper did, by making a joke alluding to his sexual orientation? Is that homophobia or just totally inappropriate behaviour?

It isn't necessarily either. Please provide the context...

scribblet · November 12, 2006

How about ridiculing a homosexual opposition member in parliament, as Harper did, by making a joke alluding to his sexual orientation? Is that homophobia or just totally inappropriate behaviour?

It isn't necessarily either. Please provide the context...

Yup.... anything and everything will be used in a smear campaign. I don't know what the comment was but likely it was something innocuous and blown out of all proportion - tactics used regularly on the Hill. More likely it was simply politically incorrect.

Argus · November 12, 2006

I have never accused Harper of approving of gay bashing including killing of gays. Such an accusation would indeed be reprehensible and despicable. I have, however, pointed out that he voted against legislation which made it a hate crime to kill people based on their sexual orientation.

Yes, but you were lying through your teeth when you did, which is also reprehensible and despicable.

Ricki Bobbi · November 12, 2006

Normie, you are still on the board. Why ignore this? Not willing to play when it isn't a Harper-hatefest? Can't stand having your inacurrate presentation of the facts proven wrong?