Stephen Harper: A one mandate PM?

[Figleaf]

Would you be prepared to kill someone just because they don't want to be part of this country? Or potentially be killed yourself?

That's totally unnecessary. Anyone who doesn't want to be part of Canada is totally free to pack their bags and seek a new home.

[Canadian Blue]

If you don't want to be part of this country then move to another country. Their are plenty out their, and if enough people dislike Canada then seperate.

PS: Any person who says that being a Canadian is about your political leanings is a complete fool.

[gc1765]

Would you be prepared to kill someone just because they don't want to be part of this country? Or potentially be killed yourself?

That's totally unnecessary. Anyone who doesn't want to be part of Canada is totally free to pack their bags and seek a new home.

Read the context of my comments. We were discussing whether or not the country should go to war if a province decides to secede.

[Figleaf]

Harper is acting like a communist dictator minus the free health-care and education.

....

The difference between you and someone who supported Hitler from the day he voted for Hitler to the day WWII ended is ZERO.

I have reported both of these comments to the moderator.

What for?

[Canadian Blue]

The member was using repeated insults and trying to inflame members here. One thing you will often notice are these comments, "your lying", "SHUT UP", "are you demented","are you retarded". After a while it gets tiresome, and its blatant partisan trolling.

Comparing Conservative votes to Nazi's, Harper to Kim Jong Il, and Canada to a Communist Regime, was all meant to inflame members and that was it.

[Figleaf]

Would you be prepared to kill someone just because they don't want to be part of this country? Or potentially be killed yourself?

That's totally unnecessary. Anyone who doesn't want to be part of Canada is totally free to pack their bags and seek a new home.

Read the context of my comments. We were discussing whether or not the country should go to war if a province decides to secede.

Well then, your original question mistated the issue. You should have asked are we willing to kill people who would, by force of arms, dissect the sovereign state and appropriate for themselves some part of our country.

[normanchateau]

Mimas I allready reported you for your immature remarks.

Since when is the term "immature" associated with the display of insults? By your definition, the House of Commons is immature. I've been insulted repeatedly on this discussion board but don't see that as a sign of immaturity on the part of the person insulting me. If anything, it might be a sign of frustration.

And since you're arbitrarily labelling those who insult you as immature, wouldn't it be equally arbitrary if I labelled as immature the insultee who, like a hurt child whining to his momma, goes running to the moderator for intervention?

[Figleaf]

...

Comparing Conservative votes to Nazi's, Harper to Kim Jong Il, and Canada to a Communist Regime, was all meant to inflame members and that was it.

There's rules against flaming, but is it forbidden to inflame?

The poster was using the example of a particular state of mind found in dedicated partisans of different organizations. The choice of Nazis was perhaps injudicious, but the intended point was not to morally equate the two.

[gc1765]

Well then, your original question mistated the issue. You should have asked are we willing to kill people who would, by force of arms, dissect the sovereign state and appropriate for themselves some part of our country.

You're playing with semantics here. There is nothing wrong with how I posed the question. I was asking someone if they would personally be willing to kill someone for trying to secede. The person who the question was addressed to understood what it meant.

[Canadian Blue]

Since when is the term "immature" associated with the display of insults? By your definition, the House of Commons is immature. I've been insulted repeatedly on this discussion board but don't see that as a sign of immaturity on the part of the person insulting me. If anything, it might be a sign of frustration.

And since you're arbitrarily labelling those who insult you as immature, wouldn't it be equally arbitrary if I labelled as immature the insultee who, like a hurt child whining to his momma, goes running to the moderator for intervention?

I thought the use of insults was something that could result in suspension. Greg has brought it up before since this forum is turning into nothing except one side that loves Harper, and another who hates Harper. Their isn't much debate here as their was before.

And since you're arbitrarily labelling those who insult you as immature, wouldn't it be equally arbitrary if I labelled as immature the insultee who, like a hurt child whining to his momma, goes running to the moderator for intervention?

Well, I don't know what else you could call it, maybe childish, juvenile. Besides some other members have PM'd myself about what is happening on the forums and I would have to agree. All this forum has turned into is one side saying how much they hate Harper, and another side coming to his defense.

We rarely ever have an actual debate, and simply sling mud.

[normanchateau]

All this forum has turned into is one side saying how much they hate Harper, and another side coming to his defense.

I see that you joined this discussion board only a month ago. Has it really changed that dramatically in such a short time?

Your perspective differs from mine. I joined about a year ago then left the discussion board in December while my wife and I travelled to many different countries in Africa and Asia. I returned to the board last month. What I remember from last year is repeated vicious attacks on Paul Martin and the Liberals. Martin was regularly called Dithers and the Liberals were regularly called Libranos, Fiberals, crooks, scumbags or worse. The attacks all came from Harper supporters and the defense from Liberal supporters. To me, we're seeing exactly the same pattern now but in reverse.

Your perception is that the criticism of Harper is increasing. It probably is increasing but that's because the longer he's in power, the more mistakes he'll make. The same was true of Paul Martin. The longer he was in power, the more mistakes he made.

Let's face it. Most of us on this discussion board are partisan and we're well-informed political junkies. If we didn't enjoy arguing with each other, we wouldn't be here. In fact, we'd be fools to be here if we didn't enjoy it because it sure is a nonproductive activity. My wife regularly criticizes me for being on this board, pointing out that the chances of me changing the opinion of a Harper supporter are about as remote as the chances of a Harper supporter changing my opinion. Her view is that the typical undecided voter who will likely determine the outcome of the next election is unlikely to spend one minute on this discussion board.

I try not to hurl insults at Harper supporters but I sure receive my share of insults. Honestly, the insults don't bother me. I feel supremely confident that the person who finds it necessary to hurl insults at me is frustrated, ill-informed, angry, losing the argument or some combination of the four. Perhaps if you reminded yourself of this, you'd be less bothered by the tone of other posters.

[Canadian Blue]

I was here about 4 years ago.

I wasn't here for any of that and I get your point. However if the Liberals were to regain power then were going to see the same thing happen. It's just a vicious cycle. I think that insults lower the quality of the board, and do nothing but provide negative consequences. Members should at the very least respect each other on here to some degree.

[Argus]

I was here about 4 years ago.

I wasn't here for any of that and I get your point. However if the Liberals were to regain power then were going to see the same thing happen

I don't think it is to the same degree. I don't think conservatives generally take the same tone towards Liberal PMs or leaders. That is, Harper is assumed to be evil - ie., moreally deficient and defective by some of these lefties. We even see them claiming he is deliberately trying to harm the poor, that he wants to see homosexuals beaten, that he hates Ontario and wants to destroy its economy. This strange sense the Left has of moral superiority in all things is not something you generally see from the right. If I dislike Chretien - and I didn't immediately, it is because of a continuing series of actions on his part which, to my mind, demonstrate neglect for his duty, contempt for the public, and blatant dishonesty, as well as arrogance and ignorance. Again, with Martin, I, at first, admired him, in the early years of the Chretien regime. However, a demonstrated arrogance, a lack of concern with issues like terrorism, his free spending ways at the end, and his dishonesty and attempts to cover up the Sponsorgate scandal, combined with his indecisiveness and lack of ideas - and that self righteous sense of moral superiority, all combined to cause me to actively dislike him, as well.

What has Harper really done since becoming PM to warrant the kind of hate from the Left we see here continuously, that we've seen almost since he took power?

[Argus]

That's the point CB!!!

You can't just appoint people from regions where you can't be elected. It's ridiculous. The tradition is once a seat opens, you've got to run in it.

If the CPC can't win in Montreal, then Fortier needs to step down as he's not a representative of the people.

This is ludicrous nonsense. First, you can appoint people from wherever you want. Nor, by the way, can you pull "traditions" out your ass and claim that the government is violating them. Fortier, so far as I've heard, is doing a good job, and you expect him to resign and run in a hopeless byelection where Jesus Christ couldn't get a seat? For what? So he can die a noble death? That's juvenile idiocy.

Actually Argus, it's called ministerial responsibility and it's a founding aspect of our parlimentary government.

No. Ministerial responsibility means that he is responsible for what happens in his department. I recognize that the Liberals abandoned this principal long ago, and some people might not be altogether familiar with it, but that's the definition.

The last time such a ridiculous display of disrespect for the system was with the "Double-Shuffle" prior to confederation.

I disagree. The last time there was such disrepsect for the system was under the Chretien government, which stonewalled every question of incompetence or misbehaviour on the part of its ministers, refusing to allow them to bear any sense of responsibility whatever for anything which happened in their departments.

Do you endorse setting up a non-elected, unaccountable cabinet...

Sure. Why not? Works in the US, works rather well, in fact. The government is ultimately responsible for their actions, and takes the responsibilty if they don't perform. Likewise here Stephen Harper takes the blame if Fortier doesn't do a good job. Where is the lack of responsibility there? You think democracy is damaged because Fortier isn't in the House, answering questions? You do realize, right, that the questions asked in the House are not written by the MP who asks, and the answers are not written by the Minister who responds? If you ask me, Question period itself is a sham, with actors reading lines. What difference who the actors are? One is the government, the other the opposition.

[Argus]

Many of us feel that siding with a western democracy over vicious, brutal, misogonystic dictatorships is the moral thing to do.

Your comment is strange because the choice under discussion here isn't between Israel and its neighboring dictatorships, but between Israel and the oppressed stateless Palestinians.

The Palestinians are no more oppressed than the Egyptians or Syrians. If they'd try for just a little bit, to leave off trying to kill Jews I'm sure their lot in life would get much better.

A corrupt. self-serving, highly politicised judiciary universally panned as dishonest and incompetent?

Well, you're clearly in the base-constituency, but most people don't think the judiciary is dishonest, or even incompetent. (Your claim of 'universally' is obvious nonsense.)

Anyone who knows about how they are appointed, who bothers to read some of their decisions knows just what a pack of venal, self-serving, political hacks and incompetents our judges are.

Oh you mean like, when the Liberals howl at them about not meeting environmental targets the Tories shouldn't point out that the LIberals spent 13 years lining their pockets instead of making any attempt to live up to the accords they had signed and the love of the environment they professed?

Yes. I mean voters don't care to hear about the tories resentments ... we want the government to concern itself with policies today, not policies yesterday.

Unfortunately, policies today are affected by the policies of yesterday. We can't meet our Kyoto targets today because of the lack of any policy, program or progress under the Liberals.

I suppose you mean the Liberals? Anyway, you're doing it right there ... blithering about the Liberals when the point is the government tories.

Since the only real alternative to the governing Tories are the Liberals it seems to me that their own far greater dishonesty has to be weighed into things when judging the Tories.

don't pussyfoot with extreme social conservatism,

Yes, it's not like they're citizens or voters or have any rights to be represented or make their wishes known. Lock them up. Hell, shoot them. So we can all live in a socialist paradise.

I'm not sure what your point is. My point was that the mainstream of Canada doesn't want the policies that the socon special interest group wants.

Social conservatives are not a "special interest group", they're Canadians who happen to disagree with you. In some cases those you label "extreme socons" outnumber everyone else. Those who would vote for gay civil unions, for example, as opposed to marriages. In other cases, as on abortion, their numbers are still in the many millions. Your position appears to be that they deserve no representation whatever, that their views should be utterly ignored, their wishes contemptuously brushed aside.

Nice democratic instincts there.

As to "winning" in elections, you need to do your arithmetic with an eye towards those who vote (more social conservatives vote than social liberals) and who might or might not vote for your party. Social conservatives will probably vote Tory. Most of those who are most opposed to social conservative ideas and policies would NEVER vote Tory anyway. You, for example.

[scribblet]

Social conservatives are not a "special interest group", they're Canadians who happen to disagree with you. In some cases those you label "extreme socons" outnumber everyone else. Those who would vote for gay civil unions, for example, as opposed to marriages. In other cases, as on abortion, their numbers are still in the many millions. Your position appears to be that they deserve no representation whatever, that their views should be utterly ignored, their wishes contemptuously brushed aside.

Nice democratic instincts there.

This is the type of thinking that bothers me as I get the distinct impression that some people think that those they consider 'socon' (definition of which is open to debate) or Christians even, should not have a political voice. We agree on separation of Church and State, but where is it written that only atheists or secularists are entitled to a voice in the political process. The attempts to demonize people because they are supposedly the 'religious right' are extremely transparent, and a definite form of McCarthyism.

[normanchateau]

I was here about 4 years ago.

I wasn't here for any of that and I get your point. However if the Liberals were to regain power then were going to see the same thing happen

I don't think it is to the same degree. I don't think conservatives generally take the same tone towards Liberal PMs or leaders.

This is a good example, Canadian Blue, of why the vicious cycle won't end. Those who criticize one side sincerely see the other side as being less objective and more biased.

[Argus]

I was here about 4 years ago.

I wasn't here for any of that and I get your point. However if the Liberals were to regain power then were going to see the same thing happen

I don't think it is to the same degree. I don't think conservatives generally take the same tone towards Liberal PMs or leaders.

This is a good example, Canadian Blue, of why the vicious cycle won't end. Those who criticize one side sincerely see the other side as being less objective and more biased.

People who impute moral motivations and failings to everything their opposition does are inevitably going to be less objective and more biased.

[Wilber]

Well then, your original question mistated the issue. You should have asked are we willing to kill people who would, by force of arms, dissect the sovereign state and appropriate for themselves some part of our country.

You're playing with semantics here. There is nothing wrong with how I posed the question. I was asking someone if they would personally be willing to kill someone for trying to secede. The person who the question was addressed to understood what it meant.

gc, the point I was trying to make is that it is not that simple. Say for example there is a referendum in a Province, the Yes side gets just over a 50% majority and the government of the day decides to secede. What if a large portion of the 40+% who voted no decided that they weren't about to let their country be taken away from them and were willing to fight to prevent it. What if they had the backing of a large number of people in the rest of the country who were willing to support them, with or without government approval? What if it was your Province? Would you try and stay neutral while your neighbours decided your future? Do you think they would let you stay neutral? Would you pack up and leave to become a refugee? These things happen all the time in the rest of the world. It is all very well to say you will not get involved but that is just you. The actions of others make take that choice away.

IMO, those who would use the separatist card are playing a very dangerous game.

[Figleaf]

The Palestinians are no more oppressed than the Egyptians or Syrians.

So?

Social conservatives are not a "special interest group", they're Canadians who happen to disagree with you.

Agreeing or disagreeing with me is beside the point.

If socons aren't a special interest group then there's no such thing as a special interest group.

In some cases those you label "extreme socons" outnumber everyone else.

What?

Your position appears to be that they deserve no representation whatever,

What manifestation of paranoia makes you see that as my position? All I've said is they're out of step with the majority and if the Tories hope to govern they won't get there by currying favor with a special interest group.

[Figleaf]

Social conservatives are not a "special interest group", they're Canadians who happen to disagree with you. In some cases those you label "extreme socons" outnumber everyone else. Those who would vote for gay civil unions, for example, as opposed to marriages. In other cases, as on abortion, their numbers are still in the many millions. Your position appears to be that they deserve no representation whatever, that their views should be utterly ignored, their wishes contemptuously brushed aside.

Nice democratic instincts there.

This is the type of thinking that bothers me as I get the distinct impression that some people think that those they consider 'socon' (definition of which is open to debate) or Christians even, should not have a political voice. We agree on separation of Church and State, but where is it written that only atheists or secularists are entitled to a voice in the political process. The attempts to demonize people because they are supposedly the 'religious right' are extremely transparent, and a definite form of McCarthyism.

Yeah! Shame on you Argus!

[Mimas]

If you don't want to be part of this country then move to another country. Their are plenty out their, and if enough people dislike Canada then seperate.

PS: Any person who says that being a Canadian is about your political leanings is a complete fool.

Exactly, if Canada is a socialist republic, the media is left-wing, the courts and public service are liberal lap dogs and taxes are too high, you should go elsewhere and stop complaining.

Dosvidania, comrade!

[g_bambino]

gc, the point I was trying to make is that it is not that simple. Say for example there is a referendum in a Province, the Yes side gets just over a 50% majority and the government of the day decides to secede.

It's been established that Quebec cannot simply secede, even if a definite majority of "Quebecers" (however one defines that) voted in favour of independence; the Quebec government simply does not have the power to alter the Constitution, and any unilateral move to declare independence and pass some new Quebec constitution would be denied Royal Assent (and thus legal legitimacy) by the Crown. So, though the Supreme Court opined that the federal and other provincial governments would have no real reason to deny the Quebecois people their right to self-determination, Quebec must negotiate withdrawal, not simply declare it.

Of course, separatists could try and poo-poo all those inconvenient legalities and simply announce themselves as independent, a la great American Revolution (wouldn’t that be so noble?). But then, how could violence be avoided in such a situation, as those who don't wish to secede from Canada, including the vast majority of the Native population in Quebec, would fight as a resistance against the secessionists. It seems to me that then we'd end up with the civil war that you worry about.

IMO, those who would use the separatist card are playing a very dangerous game.

I certainly can't debate against that, and for many more reasons that simply what I said above.

[Mimas]

gc, the point I was trying to make is that it is not that simple. Say for example there is a referendum in a Province, the Yes side gets just over a 50% majority and the government of the day decides to secede.

It's been established that Quebec cannot simply secede, even if a definite majority of "Quebecers" (however one defines that) voted in favour of independence; the Quebec government simply does not have the power to alter the Constitution, and any unilateral move to declare independence and pass some new Quebec constitution would be denied Royal Assent (and thus legal legitimacy) by the Crown. So, though the Supreme Court opined that the federal and other provincial governments would have no real reason to deny the Quebecois people their right to self-determination, Quebec must negotiate withdrawal, not simply declare it.

Of course, separatists could try and poo-poo all those inconvenient legalities and simply announce themselves as independent, a la great American Revolution (wouldn’t that be so noble?). But then, how could violence be avoided in such a situation, as those who don't wish to secede from Canada, including the vast majority of the Native population in Quebec, would fight as a resistance against the secessionists. It seems to me that then we'd end up with the civil war that you worry about.

IMO, those who would use the separatist card are playing a very dangerous game.

I certainly can't debate against that, and for many more reasons that simply what I said above.

Well the Progressive Conservative Party's Constitution did not allow for Peter MacKay to destroy the party and hand over its brand to another party, but he did it anyway. You can always find a way around things and just say that what you are doing is legal.

[scribblet]

Social conservatives are not a "special interest group", they're Canadians who happen to disagree with you. In some cases those you label "extreme socons" outnumber everyone else. Those who would vote for gay civil unions, for example, as opposed to marriages. In other cases, as on abortion, their numbers are still in the many millions. Your position appears to be that they deserve no representation whatever, that their views should be utterly ignored, their wishes contemptuously brushed aside.

Nice democratic instincts there.

This is the type of thinking that bothers me as I get the distinct impression that some people think that those they consider 'socon' (definition of which is open to debate) or Christians even, should not have a political voice. We agree on separation of Church and State, but where is it written that only atheists or secularists are entitled to a voice in the political process. The attempts to demonize people because they are supposedly the 'religious right' are extremely transparent, and a definite form of McCarthyism.

Yeah! Shame on you Argus!

I wasn't referring to Argus, I was agreeing with him.