Stephen Harper: A one mandate PM?

[Mimas]

Who can forget an entire campaign built around getting rid of the GST? Which they didn't.

An entire campaign built around opposing wage and price controls, which they later put in place.

An entire campaign built around opposing a 7cent gas tax, which they later implimented.

Several entire campaigns built around protecting and fixing health care which they allowed to deteriorate.

How about a campaign around accountability when the Accountability Act is a joke.

What about the Accountabilty Act is a joke?

It does not do very much at all to make a government accountable. Just like the "Clean Air Act" does nothing but delay cleaning up the air.

A campaign around cleaning up government and then letting lobbyists and private interests to buy votes in the House by removing restrictions on third party election spending.

What a joke. The third party election spending law was a blunt instrument designed to inhibit freedom of the press. If the Tories get rid of it I'm all for it. As for lobbyists, they ran the last Liberal governments and even wrote legislation. I see no evidence of similar influence with the present government.

Nonsense. The press can write anything they want. The third party election spending law was to prevent special interest groups from buying votes for the parties they support. How do you feel about unions spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of the NDP or the Libs (in Buzz Hargrove's case)?

A campaign about giving more power to MPs because they are the democratically elected representatives of the people and then muzzling MPs and throwing them out of caucus because they have a blog (what a crime!)

There was no campaign regarding this, however, it was the Tories' express policy to give more power to MPs. Clearly this is problematical in a shaky minority parliament.

Hello? Anybody there? Their entire campaign was about accountability, transparency, and giving more power to our representatives. What we got is no accountability, zero transparency, and the muzzling of our representatives. Harper is acting like a communist dictator minus the free health-care and education.

A campaign around not taxing income trusts and then taxing them.

Once again, this was a minor campaign promise, not something the campaign was wrapped around. I wasn't even aware of it. And the Tories did live up to the spirit of their promise, if not the letter.

Obviously, you weren't even paying attention to the campaign, so you ought not argue with others about it.

A campaign around banning gay marriage and then not doing it.

There was no such campaign.

You are kidding, right? Just about every conservative running semt letters to his/her riding's churches promissing a ban on gay marriage.

You see, the difference betwen my recitation of Liberal campaign lies and yours about the Tories is that mine are legitimate and absolutely inarguable, and concern not merely broken promises, but THE central them of Liberal campaigns. Yours are largely distortions, or about minor campaign promises, and the product of your imagination.

The difference between you and someone who supported Hitler from the day he voted for Hitler to the day WWII ended is ZERO. You wouldn't recognize a conman even if he stood before you and told you that he is one. My "distortions" are Mr. Harper's campaign in short and you admitted that you didn't follow that campaign, so how do you know they are distortions.

Your multi-millionaire idol, who is now an unelected minister in charge of over $10 billion of our tax dollars did not take his cabinet seat as an act of charity. Being the 4th guy in government gives you control over billions of dollars in contracts to give to associates and friends, who will return the favour. Do you realize how many hundreds of millions of dollars Paul Martin's company got through governement contracts and subsidies and through intentionally keeping tax loopholes on offshore tax havens open that allowed him to avoid paying taxes? Don't tell me ministers would leave multy-million-dollar positions in private industry for a pathetic $200K a year. If are naive enough to believe that, can you send me 10K cash by mail? I'll pay you back next month.

Besides, there is a by-election in Montreal in a week and Fortier refused to run. So much for his promise to run.

[geoffrey]

What about the Accountabilty Act is a joke?

That the CPC is ammending it after they discovered they broke it. That's pretty weak, what teeth does an Act have if it's being changed for violations before it's even passed.

There was no campaign I'm aware of regarding not allowing floor crossing. Nor is there any way the Tories could change the senate rules with a minority. The person appointed to the Senate was a multi-mllionaire who has promised to run in the next election so I would hardly put this into the same category as Liberals appointing their party hacks to a rich reward.

Your right, there was no plan. Unfortunately, there is a seat very near to Montreal up for election (I think it's actually right within the Greater Montreal Area, his representation in the Senate) and Fortier should be required to run there, even by previous parlimentary tradition. His not seeking that seat is a bit of a kick in the pants to accountability. If he ran, then I'd have no issue with the appointment.

What a joke. The third party election spending law was a blunt instrument designed to inhibit freedom of the press. If the Tories get rid of it I'm all for it. As for lobbyists, they ran the last Liberal governments and even wrote legislation. I see no evidence of similar influence with the present government.

Third party spending is a tough one. It pretty much violates the purpose of the whole Accountability Act. Instead of money being funneled to parties for campaigns, it'll be funneled to ad agencies to run smear campaigns against the other parties. It's even harder to control, and is a big whole in the whole accountability situation. I'm against increasing freedom to third party ad agencies... or if we must go down that path, then we'd have to remove all donation limits to parties and campaign spending limits as well... to level the playing field. And now we're back at square one.

Once again, this was a minor campaign promise, not something the campaign was wrapped around. I wasn't even aware of it. And the Tories did live up to the spirit of their promise, if not the letter.

No, they didn't. The spin around this makes seniors better off is limited. The social security seniors, maybe. The seniors that worked hard for their retirement, absolutely not.

Flaherty's decision on Income Trusts was poorly released, poor convinced and broke a financial promise the Conservatives made to Canadians. It also marked a change in CPC ideology from victory of the individual over the tax man (Harper is quoted in a similar statement about Trusts before the election), to tax and spend mentality. They've increased spending, increased taxes. Why am I voting for them instead of the Liberals again? I'm really struggling with this, Martin cut my taxes and cut spending as Finance minister. Flaherty has raised both.

Hmmmmm....

You see, the difference betwen my recitation of Liberal campaign lies and yours about the Tories is that mine are legitimate and absolutely inarguable, and concern not merely broken promises, but THE central them of Liberal campaigns. Yours are largely distortions, or about minor campaign promises, and the product of your imagination.

There can be a successful Liberal candidate that runs on the basis of economic reform, and many of the Tories decisions this parliment work against them. They've been regressive in their taxation methods and increased the tax burden on Canadians. The Liberals can be the party of business again, without Rae or Dion and they'll be extremely successful with that.

Let's see who they pick. With Rae or Dion, I'm sure Harper will be back. Iggy or Kennedy... maybe not so sure anymore.

[Mimas]

Let's see who they pick. With Rae or Dion, I'm sure Harper will be back. Iggy or Kennedy... maybe not so sure anymore.

Iggy is completely out of touch with Canadians. Dion is ok exept he barely speaks English and he would have a hell of a time debating in English. Kennedy is too much of a question mark for most Canadians. Rae on the other hand can make Harper cry on the debate floor and can give the Libs the opportunity to tap into the base of the NDP. All the Libs need is 5-6% of the NDP vote to leak to them and they will have a majority. Besides Rae speaks French better than the other three and this means A LOT in Quebec. His weaker spot is Ontario, but after Mike many Ontarians would have kissed him and many more forgot all about the recession (for which he was not responsible anyway). Besides who is Ontario going to vote for? Harper, whose intent is to cause as much financial damage to Ontario as possible in favour of everyone else (and mostly Alberta and Quebec)?

[Canadian Blue]

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

Wow, somebody sounds like they take this country for granted. Have you ever lived under a communist dictatorship? I had a friend in basic and his dad was held as a prisoner by communists in Vietnam, he told me about what the communists were like. You have no clue what you are talking about.

You are kidding, right? Just about every conservative running semt letters to his/her riding's churches promissing a ban on gay marriage.

Probably can't back this up eh. So far their hasn't been a ban on gay marriage, so I guess Harper has alienated his Socon base as well.

The difference between you and someone who supported Hitler from the day he voted for Hitler to the day WWII ended is ZERO. You wouldn't recognize a conman even if he stood before you and told you that he is one. My "distortions" are Mr. Harper's campaign in short and you admitted that you didn't follow that campaign, so how do you know they are distortions.

Wow, your so enlightened. Once again do you know anything about the nazis, or that time period in general.

Besides, there is a by-election in Montreal in a week and Fortier refused to run. So much for his promise to run.

In a Bloc stronghold. What sense would that make, if your so unsatisfied with Harper mail your MP asking them to bring down the government.

[normanchateau]

There was no campaign I'm aware of regarding not allowing floor crossing.

Campaign or not, here's a list of the 40 Conservative MPs who voted to prohibit floor-crossing on November, 23, 2005:

http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=241

[geoffrey]

Besides, there is a by-election in Montreal in a week and Fortier refused to run. So much for his promise to run.

In a Bloc stronghold. What sense would that make, if your so unsatisfied with Harper mail your MP asking them to bring down the government.

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.

[geoffrey]

There was no campaign I'm aware of regarding not allowing floor crossing.

Campaign or not, here's a list of the 40 Conservative MPs who voted to prohibit floor-crossing on November, 23, 2005:

http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=241

And the 44 that opposed the motion.......

Way to go norman, what the hell did you prove besides that the CPC has a majority opposition to limitations on floor crossing?

[normanchateau]

There was no campaign I'm aware of regarding not allowing floor crossing.

Campaign or not, here's a list of the 40 Conservative MPs who voted to prohibit floor-crossing on November, 23, 2005:

http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=241

And the 44 that opposed the motion.......

Way to go norman, what the hell did you prove besides that the CPC has a majority opposition to limitations on floor crossing?

That 40 out of 84 Conservative MPs are hypocrites.

[Argus]

What about the Accountabilty Act is a joke?

It does not do very much at all to make a government accountable. Just like the "Clean Air Act" does nothing but delay cleaning up the air.

What, precisely, is wrong with it?

Nonsense. The press can write anything they want. The third party election spending law was to prevent special interest groups from buying votes for the parties they support. How do you feel about unions spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of the NDP or the Libs (in Buzz Hargrove's case)?

I'm perfectly fine with it. That law was designed to stop people from speaking their minds during an election campaign. It's a violation of basic human freedom of speech. Even the morons on the Supreme Court admitted it was a violation of freedom of speech, but then, good little liberals that they were, they twisted themselves into pretzels to justify by suggesting that, well, someday, some rich guy might try to spend a fortune on advertising to affect a campaign, and Canadians, being stupid, would easily be swayed by such a campaign.

A campaign around not taxing income trusts and then taxing them.

Once again, this was a minor campaign promise, not something the campaign was wrapped around. I wasn't even aware of it. And the Tories did live up to the spirit of their promise, if not the letter.

Obviously, you weren't even paying attention to the campaign, so you ought not argue with others about it.

I was paying attention to the campaign on this planet, not wherever you're calling in from.

A campaign around banning gay marriage and then not doing it.

There was no such campaign.

You are kidding, right? Just about every conservative running semt letters to his/her riding's churches promissing a ban on gay marriage.

Prove it.

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

Not true. I don't speak German, for one.

You wouldn't recognize a conman even if he stood before you and told you that he is one.

I think, though, that I recognize a conman when he stands there smiling sweetly and telling me he isn't. Thus my contempt for Liberals.

Your multi-millionaire idol, who is now an unelected minister in charge of over $10 billion of our tax dollars did not take his cabinet seat as an act of charity.

Wealthy men often used to take senior government posts without renumeration. We tended to have better government then. Now, most who get a post as cabinet minister are earning more money than they ever had in their lives.

Being the 4th guy in government gives you control over billions of dollars in contracts to give to associates and friends, who will return the favour.

When that happens, you let us know, huh.

[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.

[normanchateau]

I think, though, that I recognize a conman when he stands there smiling sweetly and telling me he isn't.

So you didn't vote for Harper either? Or are conmen acceptable when they're so-conmen?

[B. Max]

If Harper is defeated in the next election, and it's increasingly likely that he will be, I think that it will be the signal that Canada is ungovernable. The different regions of the country, urban and rural, linguistic and religious, simply cannot compromise any more.

I couldn't agree more, I fact I have the same for a long time now. It is in fact a dysfunctional country, and a country in name only. To put a different slant on a well known saying. The sins of this country can only be purged by secession.

[Argus]

What about the Accountabilty Act is a joke?

That the CPC is ammending it after they discovered they broke it. That's pretty weak, what teeth does an Act have if it's being changed for violations before it's even passed.

Laws are changed all the time before and after they're put in place because of unforeseen interpretations. That's how our law works. Clearly the CPC did not expect that fees for conventions were considered campaign contributions because, well, they're not used in a campaign. Kinda makes sense to me.

There was no campaign I'm aware of regarding not allowing floor crossing. Nor is there any way the Tories could change the senate rules with a minority. The person appointed to the Senate was a multi-mllionaire who has promised to run in the next election so I would hardly put this into the same category as Liberals appointing their party hacks to a rich reward.

Your right, there was no plan. Unfortunately, there is a seat very near to Montreal up for election (I think it's actually right within the Greater Montreal Area, his representation in the Senate) and Fortier should be required to run there, even by previous parlimentary tradition. His not seeking that seat is a bit of a kick in the pants to accountability. If he ran, then I'd have no issue with the appointment.

People have been appointed to the Senate as representatives of areas where no government MP was elected before, and none of them, so far as I know, were expected to jump at the first byelection, no matter how hopeless it was. If you want to talk tradition, party big shots are normally given a relatively "safe" riding to run in, not one that's suicidal.

What a joke. The third party election spending law was a blunt instrument designed to inhibit freedom of the press. If the Tories get rid of it I'm all for it. As for lobbyists, they ran the last Liberal governments and even wrote legislation. I see no evidence of similar influence with the present government.

Third party spending is a tough one. It pretty much violates the purpose of the whole Accountability Act. Instead of money being funneled to parties for campaigns, it'll be funneled to ad agencies to run smear campaigns against the other parties. It's even harder to control, and is a big whole in the whole accountability situation. I'm against increasing freedom to third party ad agencies... or if we must go down that path, then we'd have to remove all donation limits to parties and campaign spending limits as well... to level the playing field. And now we're back at square one.

Where does all this fear people have of the evil rich guys running campaigns to destroy democracy come from? There were hardly any third party ads prior to this law. The National Citizens Coallition ran a few, and there were probably a few more from union groups. None had any huge influence. You tell me you need a draconian law to control third party advertising? Show me why. Don't give me a "Well, maybe one day, smoething bad might happen, even though it never has" give me "This is why we need it, because of these things which happened already".

Once again, this was a minor campaign promise, not something the campaign was wrapped around. I wasn't even aware of it. And the Tories did live up to the spirit of their promise, if not the letter.

No, they didn't. The spin around this makes seniors better off is limited. The social security seniors, maybe. The seniors that worked hard for their retirement, absolutely not.

The tax changes benefit more than just "social security" seniors, they benefit all senior couples with pensions.

Flaherty's decision on Income Trusts was poorly released, poor convinced and broke a financial promise the Conservatives made to Canadians. It also marked a change in CPC ideology from victory of the individual over the tax man (Harper is quoted in a similar statement about Trusts before the election), to tax and spend mentality.

Nonsense. The overwhelming beneficiaries of income trusts were going to be the very wealthy and corporate elites. Now I agree that they should have foreseen the possibility that giant companies like Bell and Telus, not to mention the big banks, would get into this to eliminate taxes. Unfortunately, they appear not to have. Once Bell and Telus did announce their intention to become income trusts, however, and there were rumblings of interest from the big banks, the government had no choice but to act.

They've increased spending, increased taxes

Increased spending on what? Aside from the money for daycare I'm unaware of any Tory inspired spending increases which have kicked in thus far. General program spending has risen because general program spending was raised enormously by Paul Martin, and much of it only kicked in earlier this year.

Nor have they increased taxes overall. The income trust change will wind up being revenue neutral. And lowering the GST more than counters eliminating Martin's desperate, last minute half percent cut to income taxes.

Why am I voting for them instead of the Liberals again? I'm really struggling with this, Martin cut my taxes and cut spending as Finance minister. Flaherty has raised both.

Nonsense. Martin raised taxes repeatedly. He only started to cut them at the end, but once he got power he dramatically raised program spending, just as Chretien had in his last two years.

There can be a successful Liberal candidate that runs on the basis of economic reform

There've been many succesful Liberal candidates who have run on the basis of economic reform. It's just that once in power they didn't make any effort to deliver any of that economic reform.

and many of the Tories decisions this parliment work against them. They've been regressive in their taxation methods and increased the tax burden on Canadians.

Taxes are down, generally. The government will collect less taxes this year than last.

The Liberals can be the party of business again, without Rae or Dion and they'll be extremely successful with that.

Let's see who they pick. With Rae or Dion, I'm sure Harper will be back. Iggy or Kennedy... maybe not so sure anymore.

Iggy is already whoring himself to any group with a vote. He's clearly one of those "promise the fools anything!" kind of candidates. I particularly disliked his statement that we should dramatically increase immigration - not skilled immigration, but family immigration (you know, those people who can't read or write or speak English) As for Kennedy, you should take a closer look at how he's handled his portfolio as education minister in Ontario. It hasn't been anything to write home about. Basically, he sold out to the unions, gave them oodles more money, and changed legislation to give the teachers union control of the Ontario College of Teachers - which disciplines teachers - to keep them happy and buy labour peace, then quit to run for Liberal leader.

[Argus]

Besides who is Ontario going to vote for? Harper, whose intent is to cause as much financial damage to Ontario as possible in favour of everyone else (and mostly Alberta and Quebec)?

People who don't believe juvenile fearmongering from the lunatic fringe.

[jdobbin]

I couldn't agree more, I fact I have the same for a long time now. It is in fact a dysfunctional country, and a country in name only. To put a different slant on a well known saying. The sins of this country can only be purged by secession.

So you are running in the next election as a separatist?

[August1991]

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.

[Mimas]

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.

Do you spend your days lurking around and reporting every word of people you don't like to the moderator? That's pretty sad.

[B. Max]

I couldn't agree more, I fact I have the same for a long time now. It is in fact a dysfunctional country, and a country in name only. To put a different slant on a well known saying. The sins of this country can only be purged by secession.

So you are running in the next election as a separatist?

No.

[sharkman]

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.

Do you spend your days lurking around and reporting every word of people you don't like to the moderator? That's pretty sad.

No, you're pretty sad. Grow up.

[jdobbin]

No.

If secession is the only solution, why not stand as a candidate?

[geoffrey]

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

Do you endorse setting up a non-elected, unaccountable cabinet... because that's exactly what your sounding off on here? It certainly works well in some countries... the US for one, but we don't have the checks and balances to do it within our system. Ministers need to be elected otherwise our democracy is pretty much a sham.

[Mimas]

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

Wow, somebody sounds like they take this country for granted. Have you ever lived under a communist dictatorship? I had a friend in basic and his dad was held as a prisoner by communists in Vietnam, he told me about what the communists were like. You have no clue what you are talking about.

In fact I do. My family is from Eastern Europe - my parents included. I have many relatives and friends there and I have visited there numerous times during the communist days and after. Studying EE politics and history is a hobby of mine. You really ought to bring more than your friend's dad's story to have more credibility than me on the issue. Mr. Harper's top down approach to government and his clampdown on free speech and opinion in his caucus is indeed much more similar to the structure of a EE communist rule than a Western democracy.

The difference between you and someone who supported Hitler from the day he voted for Hitler to the day WWII ended is ZERO. You wouldn't recognize a conman even if he stood before you and told you that he is one. My "distortions" are Mr. Harper's campaign in short and you admitted that you didn't follow that campaign, so how do you know they are distortions.

Wow, your so enlightened. Once again do you know anything about the nazis, or that time period in general.

The nazis are not the point. The point is that some followed Hitler no matter what he did. At war crimes tribunals they said that they killed civilians because they were told to do it and they didn't think it was wrong. You have to take responsibility for what you do and what you are willing to accept even from your favourite leader. If you claim to believe in democracy there is no way you should accept the fact that your representatives are not allowed to make any decisions or even talk. Having the leader and his advisers make all the decisions, forcing them on his party and everyone else without any discussion is not how the leader of a democratic country should act.

Besides, there is a by-election in Montreal in a week and Fortier refused to run. So much for his promise to run.

In a Bloc stronghold. What sense would that make, if your so unsatisfied with Harper mail your MP asking them to bring down the government.

You take democracy for granted. You find excuses for putting unelected people in government. Don't give me lessons about dictatorships and democracy.

[Mimas]

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.

Ya, you can appoint people from wherever you want. If you are Kim Jung Il of North Korea!

[jbg]

I'm all for banning the BQ as a federal party since they do not serve a federal interest and do nothing more than split the vote.

Exactly. Having the BQ in Parliament is a lot like Abe Lincoln welcoming Jefferson Davis as his Vice-President, or Paul Bernardo being made Justice Minister. They are avowedly disloyal and treasonous.

[Canadian Blue]

Mimas I allready reported you for your immature remarks.

In fact I do. My family is from Eastern Europe - my parents included. I have many relatives and friends there and I have visited there numerous times during the communist days and after. Studying EE politics and history is a hobby of mine. You really ought to bring more than your friend's dad's story to have more credibility than me on the issue. Mr. Harper's top down approach to government and his clampdown on free speech and opinion in his caucus is indeed much more similar to the structure of a EE communist rule than a Western democracy.

Do you know how many leaders have ahd a top down leadership. This country isn't closer to being like communist rule because you don't like the party leader. Wow politics and history is a hobby of yours, isn't it politics pretty well everbodies hobby on here.

The only way to run parliament is through a clampdown on the caucus. Why do you think Chretien was able to pull of nearly a decade of Liberal rule.

As well the media has a way of misrepresenting things, and whenever an MP makes a controversial statement the media ends up hounding the PM. Thus I'd imagine the PM would want more control. It's as simple as that. Thats the same with any leader, if Harper had more control over what his MP's were saying in the 05 election the Conservative's may have won it.

I doubt you really know that much about communism. Since you equated Canada with a communist regime I'd say your hooped.

Ya, you can appoint people from wherever you want. If you are Kim Jung Il of North Korea!

One post equating Canada with communism, another equating members as no different than nazis, and now saying that Harper is the equivalent of Kim Jung Il. Really get a grip on reality, if you don't even realize the harsh reality of Korea compared to Canada then you are right out of it.

You can blame Canada's democratic system for Fortier's appointment. In all honesty I wouldn't mind if we had people who were unelected. As well the current system allows Harper to appoint whoever he wants for cabinet, so blame our democracy for that one.

The nazis are not the point. The point is that some followed Hitler no matter what he did. At war crimes tribunals they said that they killed civilians because they were told to do it and they didn't think it was wrong. You have to take responsibility for what you do and what you are willing to accept even from your favourite leader. If you claim to believe in democracy there is no way you should accept the fact that your representatives are not allowed to make any decisions or even talk. Having the leader and his advisers make all the decisions, forcing them on his party and everyone else without any discussion is not how the leader of a democratic country should act.

Or for that matter people who are paranoid thinking that a certain segment of society is out to destroy the world. Your previous posts seem to always follow the notion that people on the right side of the political spectrum for some reason want to destroy the world.