Harper's foreign and social policy vs. fiscal

[jbg]

But his love-in with Israel

***

I think it's a safe bet to say Canadians are by and large fiscal conservatives, yet socially progressive. Any comments?

Do you think Canadians, by and large consider themselves to resemble primitive suicide bombers or Israelis more? Is a people that makes the desert bloom a better or worse model than a country run by despots, armed to the teeth, who slip their UN aid to Swiss bank accounts?

[BC_chick]

But his love-in with Israel

***

I think it's a safe bet to say Canadians are by and large fiscal conservatives, yet socially progressive. Any comments?

Do you think Canadians, by and large consider themselves to resemble primitive suicide bombers or Israelis more? Is a people that makes the desert bloom a better or worse model than a country run by despots, armed to the teeth, who slip their UN aid to Swiss bank accounts?

Had I known Israel would take up pretty much the entire thread, I would never have even mentioned it, especially since there is an international forum for that. If anything, I touched on Harper's handling of the situation, and to be honest, that was just ONE aspect of my post. So while I mentioned my comments on the subject, I am done discussing Israel as a topic.

But I just wanted to clarify something. Read the subject line, foreign, social, and fiscal policies. We all know what fiscal policies are. I thought people would understand that environment and gay-rights fall under social policies and the Israel example would fall under foreign policy. Given that you quote my words about Israel and then mention my assertion about social policy, you obviously didn't see the difference between social and foreign policy.

So please, refrain from using one snippet out of a sentence and then applying it to the premise of my post. That is clearly taking my words out of context.

[jbg]

Had I known Israel would take up pretty much the entire thread, I would never have even mentioned it, especially since there is an international forum for that. If anything, I touched on Harper's handling of the situation, and to be honest, that was just ONE aspect of my post. So while I mentioned my comments on the subject, I am done discussing Israel as a topic.

*snip*

So please, refrain from using one snippet out of a sentence and then applying it to the premise of my post. That is clearly taking my words out of context.

You wrote the post. You decided to take a cheap shot at Israel, not me. And frankly, a country's or leader's policies towards Israel is a darned good barometer of their willingness to lead rather than be pushed around by the foreign policy, standard issue, UN or Toronto Star driven consensus.

[Canadian Blue]

Translation: if Harper had a majority the gay-marriage issue would be absolved and we would be stuck with the Clean Air Act.

Or do you really believe that something other than his minority government prevented his views about gay-marriage going through, and something other than Dion's platform of the environment made him change his mind OVERNIGHT about the Clean Air Act?

Not really, I think their would be a free vote on the gay marriage issue, and even if we didn't change the definition I'm sure Harper would have allowed civil union's. People seem overly paranoid nowadays, I think it's because Canadian's are becoming more like American's, or in some ways the fear of becoming American has made us more American. I've allready had enough with the paranoia displayed on the 9/11 threads. Harper knew the Clean Air Act wasn't going to pass, if you pay attention to what happen's you'll notice Harper was going to work together with the NDP to change the Clean Air Act, it had little to do with Dion, or whoever became leader of the Liberal's.

Either way what was the point of this thread, other than for you to bash Harper, we allready have several thread's soley dedicated to bashing Harper. Personally I'm more of a centrist, and I can't stand the idiot's on the left and right who think their is no middle ground. I think they should f%$k off.

I think it's a safe bet to say Canadians are by and large fiscal conservatives, yet socially progressive. Any comments?

On all issues, I think some polls have shown a majority of Canadian's disagree with some of the "progressive" stances taken by the government. During the SSM debate around half of the country was split on the issue. Canadian's are more centrist, the problem is with the special interest groups who think they represent Canadian's when they really don't. On some issues I disagree with Harper such as the environment, however on other issues I agree. Some people will hate Harper no matter what, and some people will hate Dion no matter what.

It is interesting to read on here the support for Isreal. Big reversal from the idealogys of the 2nd world war where Canadians refused to help Jewish refugees fleeing Germany. It is documented that ships were not allowed to land thier children here. I wonder if one of Mr. Harper's children, when they are a little older announce they are marrying a Jewish person., will meet with any opposition. I think the in your face policies and what is said behind closed door haven't changed much. There are a lot of hypocrites out there.

I'm not sure what your trying to say here, but I don't think Harper is an anti-semite. When did support for Israel translate into that.

Do the Liberal's on here actually believe Harper is some evil kitten eater. Honestly, I think all the leaders want to do what's best for Canada, Dion, Layton, May, and Harper. I think what hurts the country more is people who are so ideological that they can't ever compromise or come up with any idea's that come from their brain's instead of the party platform.

[BC_chick]

Not really, I think their would be a free vote on the gay marriage issue, and even if we didn't change the definition I'm sure Harper would have allowed civil union's.

Well, I beg to differ. I think he made his stance against gay-marriage quite clearn from the beginning. I don't think with a majority it would have been about a free-vote.

However, no use arguing about speculation, I was using the expression rhetorically.

Harper knew the Clean Air Act wasn't going to pass, if you pay attention to what happen's you'll notice Harper was going to work together with the NDP to change the Clean Air Act, it had little to do with Dion, or whoever became leader of the Liberal's.

No, I watched the same news-channels, but I saw nothing but mud-slinging from Harper about how there is nothing wrong with the Act and how it's just the opposition criticising him for nothing as always.

Then I saw Dion get elected, having the environment as his major platform (whether or not how well he'd implement it is another discussion of course, I'm talking about what his platform was), and Brian Mulroney telling Conservatives to get it together with the green issue. I saw the polls showing the Con support slipping, and Harper changing his Clean Air Act, and the typical mud-slinging at Liberals (I've received two flyers on the Clean Air Act in my mail since Dion got elected - none before).

I do concede though that biases affect perception. You and I obviously watch the same news channels and see two different things.

Either way what was the point of this thread, other than for you to bash Harper, we allready have several thread's soley dedicated to bashing Harper.

I praised one aspect of his policy while criticisng two. Bashing is therefore a little overstated.

Nonetheless, last I checked this is a political forum, Harper is our prime minister, and I'm free to bring up my views about the man without "bashing" him.

On all issues, I think some polls have shown a majority of Canadian's disagree with some of the "progressive" stances taken by the government. During the SSM debate around half of the country was split on the issue.

But less wanted to reopen it that vice versa.

Canadian's are more centrist, the problem is with the special interest groups who think they represent Canadian's when they really don't. On some issues I disagree with Harper such as the environment, however on other issues I agree. Some people will hate Harper no matter what, and some people will hate Dion no matter what.

Sad, but true.

I'm not sure what your trying to say here, but I don't think Harper is an anti-semite. When did support for Israel translate into that.

That wasn't my quote you were responding to.

And PS.... Argggg, I can't get this multiple quote-thing to look right!

[geoffrey]

BC Chick... which party do you vote for on the environment if that's your big issue:

1) The CPC... they'll fix things in 5 decades. Kind of silly. They have a track record with their most previous administration (with the PC's) of great environmental success with the issues of the day.

2) The Liberals... they'll never fix anything, just make it some kind of social program between Eastern Canada and Alberta's oil. They have a track record with their most previous adminstration of the highest rate of increase in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution. They are the party of environmental failure, led by the Minister that was responsible for that failure.

3) The NDP... they'll never form a government, so their policy is irrelevant.

4) The Greens... they won't win a seat in the next few elections, so their policy is irrelevant.

Done and done. Your screwed no matter where you put your 'X'.

[BC_chick]

"I think they already have worked."

Well since Trudeau it doesn't seem that any long plan term has worked. Atleast we now have some sort of plan to eleminate our debt by 2015 and environmental plans by 2050 which is more than realistic.

Trudeau's dead. Time to move on.

We can all go into shades of grey and chase our tails. But things don't get done like this. It's a positive to have a firm stance on things. Try to date a guy and have him look too deep into the relationship and treat everything as a shade of grey. It usually doesn't work out well. Meet a man who has a firm stance and believes in commitment; you'll have a better outcome with black and white.

I would prefer him to stay out of foreign policy, unless it directly affects us or where a helpless crime against humanity is being perpetrated - like Darfur (I don't think you can compare the IDF with the African tribes of Darfur). Funny though how he hasn't commented once on Darfur.

And for you to find this a negative thing is unfortunate.

Likewise, I think for you to think that he's showing leadership by practising a one-sided policy when you acknowledge atrocity on both sides, is unfortunate.

Maybe if he stated things as you do, with at least a hint of objectivity (while taking a side with what he perceives to be the BETTER of the two - as opposed to the ONLY good one), I could appreciate his "leadership."

Gays have all the equal rights that straight people do under marriage.

No they do not. They can not exercise their right to marry their significant other. Marriage is a legally-binding contract, and according to the Charter, all law must conform with the Charter.

The enironment is not a huge thing. Canada makes only 5% of green house gasses and are not even in the top polluting countries. We should worry about our own waste and polution sure, but that's being done right now. Soon electirc cars will be common place and coal burning plants will be shut down. these things take time. Things are fine for Canada. There's nothing else we can do.

We are 0.5% of the world population, and we contribute 2% actually. If everyone just looked at their share and said well it's only 2% or 5%, we'd never get anywhere. As for the cars, we've been hearing this for a long time. And if you really believe the oil lobbies will allow any politicians to push any of this through, I would strongly disagree. We've had the technology for years. There's good reason we don't have not applied it yet.

Canadad is a clean, environmentally safe country that has almost nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. Most of our land is vacant and non-poluting. The sky is not falling, the world is not going to end.

As I said, not true, proportionally we are not doing too well.

The above statement is the reason why I said that you do not have knoweldge on a lot of topics. If you did, you'd realize Canada is an extremely clean and friendly country that in no way is creating the worlds polution.

2% pollution for 0.5% population. And even you put it at 5%. What were you saying about not having knowledge on the subject?

You'd also know that Kyoto uses questionable computer software that many see errors in to determine green house gasses. Many think it's the sun rays causing this which is a normal cycle of the earth. In the 1980's it was the 'global cooling' ice age, now it's 'global warming'. It's questionable at best, either way, Canada plays little role in these problems which compared to other countries.

Kyto is an acknowledgment and a commitment. As for the sun rays and natural evolution of the earth, natural climate change happens over the course of centuries, not so volatile like now. Also, when stimulating the earth's atmospphere is a biodome, it is proven that green-house gasses do increase the surrounding temperature.

It's a civic duty as a Canadian residing in Canada to vote on Canadian issues. You should be concerned formost with your fellow citizen dying on a hostpital waiting list or waiting for an organ transplant. That should be your greatest concern - not Isreal or China's polution which is out of our hands.

I could say the same thing about Harper and why he feels the need to discuss in such harsh terms policies of a country with which we have no geographical or real trade relationship.

I agree. What riding are you in? It doesn't sound like your in a high immigrant area.

You really need to quit stereotyping, you wouldn't want to scare off your ever-increasing minority base.

So you are telling me that you work for a large company with 200 working people people, are in BC, that hate Harper, yet they are all white Canadians? That sounds very suspect indeed. Do you live in Camloops?

Yes to the first question, and no to the second. As I said, you seem to have made up your mind though that Liberal supporters are mostly immigrant. Then perhaps you'd like to explain why the Liberals have dominated Candian politics for long before mulitculturalism. There is a big difference between rural voting patterns and urban. You have to stop blaming immigrants for your party's inability to gain real strides.

"Okay, that's why Harper's approval rating shot up the roof initially with his fiscal policies and started dropping to half of that when his social policies started coming out.

Are you sure the Lebanon incedant has nothign to do with that?

That's where it started. But it got worse with the budget slashes, and even worse with the Clean Air Act. BTW, why do you jump at me for criticising his Israel stance and then go on and agree that that's where his downfall began? You mean we're all wrong, and you're all right?

Another athiest, far left, conspericy theory, Michael Morre loving Lib. Lol..

Surprised you didn't throw immigrant in there. Why stop there?

I disagree. Then tell me where there are so many daughters in Surrey getting arranged marriages to other indo-Canadian second generations? Who's the racist? Why are there so many of them with 'nick names' to describe white Canadians? Why is there a stadium packed with 30,000 people, mostly second generation to see a bollywood actor from India?

So many is not the same thing as majority. It's your personal observation.

[BC_chick]

BC Chick... which party do you vote for on the environment if that's your big issue:

1) The CPC... they'll fix things in 5 decades. Kind of silly. They have a track record with their most previous administration (with the PC's) of great environmental success with the issues of the day.

2) The Liberals... they'll never fix anything, just make it some kind of social program between Eastern Canada and Alberta's oil. They have a track record with their most previous adminstration of the highest rate of increase in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution. They are the party of environmental failure, led by the Minister that was responsible for that failure.

3) The NDP... they'll never form a government, so their policy is irrelevant.

4) The Greens... they won't win a seat in the next few elections, so their policy is irrelevant.

Done and done. Your screwed no matter where you put your 'X'.

Well put!

3 and 4 are obviously out for the stated reasons. Though I think NDP provides a terrific opposition that the ruling party needs to negotiate with in order to get things done. So I like them having 15-20 seats, works great for me.

That leaves the 50 year plan and the empty-promising Liberals. Now, given that the Liberals have just put their eggs in the basket of a man who CLAIMS to care for the environment, and who merely had eight months to prove himself on this before, I think I'll chance it with Dion.

Though just so you don't think I'm a blind Liberal supporter, I did not vote Liberal in the last election.

[madmax]

At least we now have some sort of plan to eleminate our debt by 2015

[

Eliminate the Debt by 2015? Not possible. What is scarey about what Flarehty proposed, is that this method of accounting is exactly the same method that Bob Rae/count Floyd used. Any government can count assetts against the debt.

[jefferiah]

Well Harper may not be a perfect man but I support him. I think he is right to say he stands by Israel. Israel has a right to defend itself. I am sure not everyone in Israel is a saint and not all Palestinians are evil, but nonetheless the nation of Israel has the moral high ground as far as I am concerned. I understand that people who don't support Israel do so not because they support terrorism, but because they believe in peace. However, I dont think they realize what Israel has to deal with on a day to day basis. Conservatives may sometimes be guilty of if you are not with us 100 percent you must be 100 percent for the other guy. I know a lot of people like that, granted. But still I think the Liberals are far far worse. They make ridiculous motions and they do a good job of selling the idea to the public that anyone who opposes liberal policies are narrow-minded bigots. Harper's cuts to the Advisory Council For the Status of Women and other things of this nature are perceived as bigoted. But what people don't realize is that he is not doing to stick it to women but because they use a great deal of Canadian money to create a job for themselves. Its an easy idea create a government job with a name that claims to support a minority and you have created good job security because whenever someone threatens to close you down you can make them look bad. People have to see through the "names" and "labels". The very people who attach the words "equality" and "liberty" to themselves often do so for no other reason than a good image.

I think maybe BC Chick took offense to Mike David saying that she was uninformed. I dont think he meant she was stupid. I think he may have had a good point but did not put it well. Growing up I had a very Liberal-tainted view because I think they do have the better part of the media. Conservatives seemed to be the stiff-necked bible-thumping bigots. It's only in the last few years that I have begun to see things differently. Sometimes it involves looking at an issue a little deeper than the liberal headlines bashing conservatives as intolerant, actually pursuing the real reasons conservatives stand where they do. I think alot of people in Canada who vote Liberal dont have all the information they would like. I know many people in NB where I live are very conservative people and yet they vote liberal, and I think maybe it has to do with family or just a lack of interest.

Back to Israel, I fully understand that when Lebanon was being bombed people were horrified by the death of innocent civilians. This is a harsh reality. But what you must also understand is that before this happened Hezbollah had already begun attacking Israel with Ketushah rockets. It is easy to sit here in Canada where we have lived in relative peace for a long time and judge Israel for fighting back. But when rockets are falling on north Israel, the Israeli government has a duty (not only the right) to protect its citizens. They responded by firing back at areas in Lebanon from where rocket fire was coming. Civilians died but Israel had to do this to protect their own. That is the reality. The Hezbollah cowards had been firing from civilian areas because they knew that Israel would have to respond, and that this response would make them look bad. Israel had to do something. They werent doing it for the joy of bombing Lebanon. Nobody likes it. But they have to protect themselves.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Trudeau's dead. Time to move on.

You accuse the right wing and Islamists of being angry?

I would prefer him to stay out of foreign policy, unless it directly affects us or where a helpless crime against humanity is being perpetrated -

The attacks of 9/11 weren't a crime against humanity? That is the very solid argument for the Afghanistan mission.

No they do not. They can not exercise their right to marry their significant other. Marriage is a legally-binding contract, and according to the Charter, all law must conform with the Charter.

SSM is legal in Canada. And your reading of the Charter is a little .... misinformed shall we say.

Kyto is an acknowledgment and a commitment.

Kyoto was a commitment the Liberals made in 1997. By the time the Conservatives took power in January the only way for the Government to honour that commitment was to ship billions of dollars off-shore to buy emission credits. The inaction of the Liberals for 8 1/2 years left the Conservatives with only one option. To leave Kyoto and come up with a new plan that works for all Canadians. The new Environment minister will have to come up with that plan early in the new year.

You really need to quit stereotyping, you wouldn't want to scare off your ever-increasing minority base.

So you chastise other people for stereotyping, but you stay things like this.

I heard an interesting quote tonight. If you are busy judging, you can't love. When I heard it, I reflected on it and responded by saying no wonder Islamists and Conservatives are so hostile, they're too busy judging everyone who doesn't look like them, talk like them, think like them.

Wow, what blatant hypocrisy.

[jbg]

Though just so you don't think I'm a blind Liberal supporter, I did not vote Liberal in the last election.

NDP? I didn't vote CPC, Liberal or NDP.

[BC_chick]

I think maybe BC Chick took offense to Mike David saying that she was uninformed. I dont think he meant she was stupid. I think he may have had a good point but did not put it well.

Maybe. But now I put forth my information on global-warming nobody has yet touched it.

Growing up I had a very Liberal-tainted view because I think they do have the better part of the media. Conservatives seemed to be the stiff-necked bible-thumping bigots. It's only in the last few years that I have begun to see things differently. Sometimes it involves looking at an issue a little deeper than the liberal headlines bashing conservatives as intolerant, actually pursuing the real reasons conservatives stand where they do. I think alot of people in Canada who vote Liberal dont have all the information they would like. I know many people in NB where I live are very conservative people and yet they vote liberal, and I think maybe it has to do with family or just a lack of interest.

Geography is definitely an aspect. People learn from talking to each other. But it goes both ways. You can't tell me all the Blue ridings in rural Canada and Alberta weren't influenced by THEIR parents and teachers and so on.

As for blaming the media or immigrants, it's as silly as conspiracy theories on the left. People see what they want to see. I just canceled my subscription to maclean's because I find their editorials so biased and right-wing.

Yet in the letters to the editor I read "reading your magazine is like voting for the NDP." Perceptions... that's all it is.

Back to Israel

Even though there are a number of issues you raise with which I disagree, as I said to another poster - I'm not discussing Israel as a topic anymore. We are in the federal politics section and we should discuss the point I raised initially - about Harper's handling thereof. Not Israel policies itself.

But let me say to you what I also said previously.

IF Harper was even a little more objective (as you just were), ie saying things like "yes, Israel does wrong, but in the end they are MORE right" I could respect his POV. But to negate all wrongdoings of one side of a conflict is wrong IMO. Life is gray, perhaps closer to white for some, closer to black for others. But to paint a situation as black or white as Harper does, bothers me. It's not something I admire as "leadership," I consider it narrow-mindedness.

It was the way I was raised and taught I guess - that in a conflict there are always two sides to a story and any argument that starts on the premise of being 100% correct is flawed.

[BC_chick]

Though just so you don't think I'm a blind Liberal supporter, I did not vote Liberal in the last election.

NDP? I didn't vote CPC, Liberal or NDP.

It was me, a pencil, a piece of paper, and a cardboard cut-out around me. What happened next, is anybody's guess.

[Canadian Blue]

IF Harper was even a little more objective (as you just were), ie saying things like "yes, Israel does wrong, but in the end they are MORE right" I could respect his POV. But to negate all wrongdoings of one side of a conflict is wrong IMO. Life is gray, perhaps closer to white for some, closer to black for others. But to paint a situation as black or white as Harper does, bothers me. It's not something I admire as "leadership," I consider it narrow-mindedness.

It was the way I was raised and taught I guess - that in a conflict there are always two sides to a story and any argument that starts on the premise of being 100% correct is flawed.

So we should have politician's who are more likely to dither, fewer Churchill's, and more Martin's? What does objective even mean, I've got no clue, the Liberal's certainly weren't all that objective. Look at the gun registry, and how much of a waste of money that was.

What about the resolution brought forward that only recognized casualties on the Arab side yet not on the Israeli side, Harper fought to have casualties on both sides recognized. As far as I'm concerned I'm proud that are PM stood up for Israel on that. Israel is held to a double standard as compared to most other countries.

I heard an interesting quote tonight. If you are busy judging, you can't love. When I heard it, I reflected on it and responded by saying no wonder Islamists and Conservatives are so hostile, they're too busy judging everyone who doesn't look like them, talk like them, think like them.

You just painted two groups of people all with the same brush. That's fairly hypocritical of you, and I'm sure that's a very intolerant and narrowminded view.

I would prefer him to stay out of foreign policy, unless it directly affects us or where a helpless crime against humanity is being perpetrated - like Darfur (I don't think you can compare the IDF with the African tribes of Darfur). Funny though how he hasn't commented once on Darfur.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/23/darfur-harper.html

As for helpless crimes against humanity, I think the Taliban is kind of in the category for crimes against humanity.

Well, I beg to differ. I think he made his stance against gay-marriage quite clearn from the beginning. I don't think with a majority it would have been about a free-vote.

However, no use arguing about speculation, I was using the expression rhetorically.

Based on fear and paranoia on your own part. I'll accept that.

No, I watched the same news-channels, but I saw nothing but mud-slinging from Harper about how there is nothing wrong with the Act and how it's just the opposition criticising him for nothing as always.

Because we don't have constructive opposition.

Then I saw Dion get elected, having the environment as his major platform (whether or not how well he'd implement it is another discussion of course, I'm talking about what his platform was), and Brian Mulroney telling Conservatives to get it together with the green issue. I saw the polls showing the Con support slipping, and Harper changing his Clean Air Act, and the typical mud-slinging at Liberals (I've received two flyers on the Clean Air Act in my mail since Dion got elected - none before).

Kind of like "Soldiers in the streets", mudslinging occurs on both sides, don't kid yourself. Remember when the Liberal's were attacking Day for his religious beliefs, and labelling all CA supporters as racists and holocaust deniers.

But less wanted to reopen it that vice versa.

Yes, however it was an election promise. With the exception of income trusts Harper has gone through with alot of what he has promised. Liberal's attack the Conservative's for keeping promises, Conservative's attack Liberal's for breaking them.

Canadian's are more centrist, the problem is with the special interest groups who think they represent Canadian's when they really don't. On some issues I disagree with Harper such as the environment, however on other issues I agree. Some people will hate Harper no matter what, and some people will hate Dion no matter what.

Sad, but true.

The biggest problem with the Liberal's is they fund special interest group's who fit into their political interests. I have a huge problem with that, as no government should be funding political group's, or advocacy groups. I believe NOW got government funding, but what about REAL Women, or the NCC, etc. Government shouldn't be involved with lobbyists at any level.

Personally I'm more of a Classical Liberal [aka Libertarian], I think smaller government usually mean's better government, and only believe in government intervention when it is absolutely needed.

PS: For some reason the quote feature is f%$ked.

[jefferiah]

I think maybe BC Chick took offense to Mike David saying that she was uninformed. I dont think he meant she was stupid. I think he may have had a good point but did not put it well.

Maybe. But now I put forth my information on global-warming nobody has yet touched it.

Growing up I had a very Liberal-tainted view because I think they do have the better part of the media. Conservatives seemed to be the stiff-necked bible-thumping bigots. It's only in the last few years that I have begun to see things differently. Sometimes it involves looking at an issue a little deeper than the liberal headlines bashing conservatives as intolerant, actually pursuing the real reasons conservatives stand where they do. I think alot of people in Canada who vote Liberal dont have all the information they would like. I know many people in NB where I live are very conservative people and yet they vote liberal, and I think maybe it has to do with family or just a lack of interest.

Geography is definitely an aspect. People learn from talking to each other. But it goes both ways. You can't tell me all the Blue ridings in rural Canada and Alberta weren't influenced by THEIR parents and teachers and so on.

As for blaming the media or immigrants, it's as silly as conspiracy theories on the left. People see what they want to see. I just canceled my subscription to maclean's because I find their editorials so biased and right-wing.

Yet in the letters to the editor I read "reading your magazine is like voting for the NDP." Perceptions... that's all it is.

Back to Israel

Even though there are a number of issues you raise with which I disagree, as I said to another poster - I'm not discussing Israel as a topic anymore. We are in the federal politics section and we should discuss the point I raised initially - about Harper's handling thereof. Not Israel policies itself.

But let me say to you what I also said previously.

IF Harper was even a little more objective (as you just were), ie saying things like "yes, Israel does wrong, but in the end they are MORE right" I could respect his POV. But to negate all wrongdoings of one side of a conflict is wrong IMO. Life is gray, perhaps closer to white for some, closer to black for others. But to paint a situation as black or white as Harper does, bothers me. It's not something I admire as "leadership," I consider it narrow-mindedness.

It was the way I was raised and taught I guess - that in a conflict there are always two sides to a story and any argument that starts on the premise of being 100% correct is flawed.

I never said Israel was more right, or that they did wrong. I said not everyone in Israel is a saint and not everyone in Palestine is a bad guy. Conservatives know this. But when Israel defends itself against attacks and people criticize them for doing so in a far off country where we know nothing of the middle east and what its like to deal with that madness, I think it's a little bit ridiculous. And there are issues where one side is one hundred percent right, failure to see that results in great injustice. Imagine a man who throws rocks at your house everyday, and riots outside your doorstep. You try to negotiate with him, but he is never satisfied. So one day after a rock comes through your window. You call the cops and they say well we cant do anything about it. So one day you come out with a gun and say look I have kids in here, if you dont quit i will be forced to defend myself. And then the man instead of understanding your position says....well lookie here now, threatening me with a gun. He reports you and has you charged and everyone who has never had this experience watches the news and says "Yeah she could have handled that better."

[mikedavid00]

Trudeau's dead. Time to move on.

He is alive and well in the hearts of Canadians and living in the Liberal party of Canada.

I would prefer him to stay out of foreign policy, unless it directly affects us or where a helpless crime against humanity is being perpetrated - like Darfur (I don't think you can compare the IDF with the African tribes of Darfur). Funny though how he hasn't commented once on Darfur.

I feel bad for the people of Darfur. The gov't and people give to the red cross and unicef to help out the people in Darfur. We are a small, non-supper power, welfare state of a country. We can't solve their problems, and,

in no way, shape, or form, should these people be stepping on Canadian soil - victim or not.

Likewise, I think for you to think that he's showing leadership by practising a one-sided policy when you acknowledge atrocity on both sides, is unfortunate.

In the real world you have to take sides. You can't play psycologist when lives are at stake and more importantly use these situations for political votes. Harper doesn't have the Muslim vote. It's gone. It's gone for a reason that does not affect our country in any way. This is un-Canadian. We support those wo support peace. That is Isreal.

We should not vote for polititians on his feelings of International conflict.

The Islamic vote is extrememly important in Canada if a poltician wants to gain seats, the same cannot be said for the Jewish vote. It was not in Harpers best interest from a vote pandering point of view to support Isreal. But he did. Why? Becuase he governs on behalf of Canada - not political agenda like the Liberals.

Maybe if he stated things as you do, with at least a hint of objectivity (while taking a side with what he perceives to be the BETTER of the two - as opposed to the ONLY good one), I could appreciate his "leadership."

Harper and everyone with common sense knows that Isreal has not been perfect. Do you expect them to be though under their circumstances? One side is far more wrong than the other in this conflict and we need to take sides in this matter. Not be impartial which is just another way of pandering for votes.

Canada should not deal with terrorists. The reason is because it promotes even more terrorism.

No they do not. They can not exercise their right to marry their significant other. Marriage is a legally-binding contract, and according to the Charter, all law must conform with the Charter.

I am not a person of color. theh gov't determines and tracks visible minorities. I believe it's discrimination that I am not a visible minority. It's against my rights that I not be considered a visible minority when, in my city, I am visible minority. Thus, I should be able to apply for a gov't job under 'visible minority' status so I can get it easier.

Same thing. I'm denied my rights for being considere a visible minority.

Gays have all the rights legally under a civil union. They just don't get the word 'marriage'.

I get all the same rights as a visible minority. I just don't get to be called a 'visible minority'.

(wow that was a great parallel)

We are 0.5% of the world population

There's got to be a joke in here somewhere.

, and we contribute 2% actually.

Big deal. India's GDP raises 8% a year or so. But 8% of nothing is still nothing. Over half the people are still hungry, poor, and illiterate.

If everyone just looked at their share and said well it's only 2% or 5%, we'd never get anywhere.

Idealism, not the reality of the situation. The world has never worked together once to make an effort like this happen. It wont work this time.

I'm saying we shouldn't make this a priority like China, India, and other places that polute MUCH more than we do. I think 2050 is a good target.

Even if we bankrupt ourselves trying to clain the air, it won't matter because we can't control what the other countries do.

As for the cars, we've been hearing this for a long time. And if you really believe the oil lobbies will allow any politicians to push any of this through, I would strongly disagree. We've had the technology for years. There's good reason we don't have not applied it yet.

Not true. Old electric cars fell extrememly short in their distance and recharge times. They also couldn't go fast. Now there is new battery cell technology which allows you to use a regular 240V oven outlet to recharge a full size vehicle that goes 180KM/h which are good highway speeds. It also has 400lbs of torque which is excellent for city driving. On one charge you can go 200KM's which is good enough for city driving. There is also a quickcharger that can charge it in 10 min. take a look.

oil lobby's can't control the marketplace like you think.

As I said, not true, proportionally we are not doing too well.

That's a poor argument. It's like saying that the US isn't doing well compared to India just because the GDP is higher in deleloping countries. We may not be doing well per capita, but it's completely irrelavant to the real issue at hand of gloabl warming.

We will lose jobs and industry if we try to fight something that isn't important in the greater scheme of things.

2% pollution for 0.5% population. And even you put it at 5%. What were you saying about not having knowledge on the subject?

There was an article saying that we made 5% but it seems no one has the numbers down because it doesn't matter in the long run.

When we have our own citizens dying on waiting lists, major full time job losses, a growing welfare state, and 300,000 people wandering into our country each year, an abstarct ideological debated issue involving the world or Islamic issue should not be at the forefront of any Canadians vote.

Canada cannot, and never will, be able to control the worlds C02 emmisions.

Kyto is an acknowledgment and a commitment. As for the sun rays and natural evolution of the earth, natural climate change happens over the course of centuries, not so volatile like now.

Makes me wonder what happened to the 'ice age' global cooling scare in the 1980's.

Also, when stimulating the earth's atmospphere is a biodome, it is proven that green-house gasses do increase the surrounding temperature.

That's dandy. But Canada is not a power broker country Like the US. We're not that rich, not that populous, have a poor quality of life, and we are an international welfare state for the world to come to and use our services. That's all Canada is on the world stage.

We are NOT a power broker and have about NO impact on the atmosphere, C02 levels, the Sun, the moon, the stars or what any other country wants to do.

These are the facts of the matter, not my opinion. If we should lessen C02 because it makes a small sect of our citizens feel good about ourselves, that's fine. Lets do that. But lets not bankrupt ourselves in doing it. It will be slowely, over time, that this will happen. Dion and his dog certainly aren't going to fix the worlds problems.

You really need to quit stereotyping, you wouldn't want to scare off your ever-increasing minority base.

Stereotyping are one of the fun things in life.

Yes to the first question, and no to the second. As I said, you seem to have made up your mind though that Liberal supporters are mostly immigrant.

It's factual that immigrants support Liberal. How do you think they got their seats last election?

The Liberal party is an Immigrant\Quebec special interest party that do not govern on behalf of the people. (factual)

The CPC... well.. they try to goven on behalf of the people but have also pandered to special interest also. but to a *much* lesser extant than the Liberals.

Then perhaps you'd like to explain why the Liberals have dominated Candian politics for long before mulitculturalism.

Becuase we weren't a 'welfare state' at the time. Canada was open market/military country. See some old Liberal speeches from back in the day and you'll hear stuff that will make you cringe that the Liberal party of Canada could be saying "And us fellow Canadians as men under God, shall fight in hills, fight in the trenches, and we shall never stop until we rest on the flag of the maple leaf".

That's the old Liberal party.

A dumb-*ss dictator named Trudeua basically turned our country into a welfare state. Trudeau is directly responsible for the Canadian who died today waiting for a transplant or waiting for a surgey.

There is a big difference between rural voting patterns and urban. You have to stop blaming immigrants for your party's inability to gain real strides.

Not true. Areas like Brampton-Springdale were always Conservative strongholds and moved to Liberal after the immigrant population grew high enough to ensure victory. This happend 1993.

The CPC isn't my party. The Reform party was. But I do support the CPC because I don't want Dion and his half-retarded, ideoligy, job killing, idiotic ideals ruining our country further than it already is.

That's where it started. But it got worse with the budget slashes, and even worse with the Clean Air Act.

What budget slashes?

And why is an international issue of poeple who are not Canadians using BILLIONS of our tax dollars to come here have anything to do with whether or not we support our prime-minster.

Ah yes, immigrants and non-Canadians complained that there wasn't sandwiches and finger foods on the ship ride back. The CBC did their absolute BEST to bury harper, and I whitnessed him go down in poll after poll.

BTW, why do you jump at me for criticising his Israel stance and then go on and agree that that's where his downfall began? You mean we're all wrong, and you're all right?[/quote]

I get upset that a voter like yourself have forgot what being a Canadian means. You have forgot what a border arouond our country, our security and our own issues are. We have Canadians dying on hospital waiting lists, but you don't really care about that. We have young generations of ghettoized muslims who are out to do harm in our own country of Canada and you don't care about that. We have lost 18,000 full time jobs in the last 2 months, yet have let 50,000 people into the country. And you don't care about that.

Instead, your priorities in your life lay with an international issue with Isreal and people on a boat ride who don't consider theselves Canadian. You priorities and concern lay with some woman in Montreal saying 'Hezbollah is our protector". Your concern lay with an abstart, idealism of C02 emisions destroying the world even though we aren't even a major producer of C02 have a plan outlines to deal with this.

It's very upsetting because it's like you've been brainwashed by whomever to believe that these abstract and foreign issues are important. They are not important. Our trade, economy, and healthcare are important. Our country is important.

Surprised you didn't throw immigrant in there. Why stop there?

Immigrants are mostly good people.

I just feel that they should only be comign to canada on temporary work permits and sent back home when they expire. (kind of like how every other country in the world does it).

So many is not the same thing as majority. It's your personal observation.

Well it's the truth. They aren't integrating and pretending they have not left their home country. It's a bit disturbing teh level of utter rascism that is present with the second gen people in surrey.

I remember my ex gf from Vancouver who was in Otttawa on a co-op "oh my grandmather wouldn't like you, you can't speak Hindi and your white".

"I don't like Ottawa, there's too many white people here".

Heheh.. that girl also had a TV spot on a local Vancouver show called Zindagi. Also co-president of the Comp-Sci studnet association of UBC. ..wonder what happened to her.

[mikedavid00]

I understand that people who don't support Israel do so not because they support terrorism, but because they believe in peace.

And so does Isreal. Isreal was attacked by missiles so it has the right to defend itself. It's pretty simple who we should be siding with.

As for not taking sides, I don't feel it's a positive for world development to not take sides. Imagine if everyone was impartial and didn't take sides. We'd probably all be speaking German right now if we didn't take sides and fight against wrong.

Hezbolla on their TV station have a kids show where they have a game where kids trying to assemble a dissassembled AK-47 while blind-folded.

Then we have a woman in Montreal saying 'Hezbolla is our protector' during a press conference. Right here on Canadian soil becuae her family died while living in his home country. I don't feel sorry for her.

I think maybe BC Chick took offense to Mike David saying that she was uninformed. I dont think he meant she was stupid. I think he may have had a good point but did not put it well.

Yes she doesn't know what I meant. Most of the Canadian public is uninformed. They don't know how many poeple come into Canada each month, they don't understand the function of the economy, our national expendatures, and the climate of our country. The reason why is becuase they don't vote regularaly and have a say on policy so keep themselves out of the loop. The gov't is a dictatoriship that funds a left leaning organization called the CBC who's job is to further brainwash the people. Private media cannot compete with the CBC so we don't have a lot of media. Thus there's little choice.

Growing up I had a very Liberal-tainted view because I think they do have the better part of the media.

I completley agree. I felt all the answers to our problems was just to tax people a little bit more. Traffic? Just put tolls on the roads and tax poeple. Environment? Just tax businesses if they don't comply. Hospitals busy? Just make sure everyone pays fees. Hospital needs more fuding?

When I was young, I had this perfect idea of the gov't building buildings per 10,000 people of population and 10% of the area could be hired by gov't. All people would have to do is pay.. i can't remember, I had the math worked out and figured that this would decrease employment by 5% and solve all our problems.

But I was a dumb kid. I was uninformed. I never read into stuff. I just heard headlines and thought my simple could figure out all the solutions to our problems. I see some here with that same mentatlity to be honest. Way out there wacky lib ideas.

I grew up and learned some hard knocks of life. Hard knocks of living in Canada. Met people from all over parts of the world and lived about. I researched for years and read into things myself. The media in Canada is NOT here to help inform people of facts.

Kyoto is a huge deal. Canada puts out 2% of emmisions. Not ONE media organization stops and asks the logical question: "If we only put out 2% of emissions, we is this being made the #1 priority Mr. Dion".

Not once did the media even ask the question. So it's natural to think the worlds going to end if Canada doesn't do something. Most people won't take the time to research stuff on their own. They are like me when I was a teen thinking in abstract ideals and trying to use my un-informed logic to figure stuff out.

BC Chick is atleast smart unlike some others. It's such a shame to see it go to waste. Or for her to allow the media to brainwash her into thinking some issues should be important, when they really aren't.

[mikedavid00]

The attacks of 9/11 weren't a crime against humanity? That is the very solid argument for the Afghanistan mission.

I agree. Also, many Canadians died on 9-11.

Kyoto was a commitment the Liberals made in 1997. By the time the Conservatives took power in January the only way for the Government to honour that commitment was to ship billions of dollars off-shore to buy emission credits.

HELL NO!

I don't want them getting their mitts on our money. Dion actually wants to send our money out of the country. Maybe it's his Univeristy prof intellect.

[mikedavid00]

IF Harper was even a little more objective (as you just were), ie saying things like "yes, Israel does wrong, but in the end they are MORE right" I could respect his POV. But to negate all wrongdoings of one side of a conflict is wrong IMO.

But is him throwing an additional statement or two in an international issue is THAT important to you?? Who cares! We side with peace, we side with Isreal on that particular war. Isreal has made mistakes and wrong doings, but that had nothing to do with that particular incident. Isreal was agressively attacked.

Harper has done several things I don't approve of. I feel he's not being harsh enough in cutting gov't waste, but he is trying to get re-elected. I still accept him and his short comings.

He's also gained a lot weight.

[jbg]

And so does Isreal. Isreal was attacked by missiles so it has the right to defend itself. It's pretty simple who we should be siding with.

As for not taking sides, I don't feel it's a positive for world development to not take sides. Imagine if everyone was impartial and didn't take sides. We'd probably all be speaking German right now if we didn't take sides and fight against wrong.

Hezbolla on their TV station have a kids show where they have a game where kids trying to assemble a dissassembled AK-47 while blind-folded.

You don't think Harper should side with a group or group of groups that:

1. Plans to use land seized when the "Zionist entity" is thrown into the sea to settle ancient tribal scores;
   
2. Gets massive international aid, yet doesn't have the money to meet payroll, because money is either used for weaponry or diverted to Swiss bank accounts;
   
3. Fires rockets indiscriminately and doesn't care if they hit civilians;
   
4. Has taken no steps to formulate plans for economic development of a nation-state if the two-state solution is negotiated;and
   
5. Lies through their teeth when talking in English, tells truth in public in Arabic.
   

[mikedavid00]

You don't think Harper should side with a group or group of groups that:

1. Plans to use land seized when the "Zionist entity" is thrown into the sea to settle ancient tribal scores;
   
2. Gets massive international aid, yet doesn't have the money to meet payroll, because money is either used for weaponry or diverted to Swiss bank accounts;
   
3. Fires rockets indiscriminately and doesn't care if they hit civilians;
   
4. Has taken no steps to formulate plans for economic development of a nation-state if the two-state solution is negotiated;and
   
5. Lies through their teeth when talking in English, tells truth in public in Arabic.
   

And don't foget Ignatieff calling Islreal's defence 'war crimes'.

[jefferiah]

I understand that people who don't support Israel do so not because they support terrorism, but because they believe in peace.

And so does Isreal. Isreal was attacked by missiles so it has the right to defend itself. It's pretty simple who we should be siding with.

As for not taking sides, I don't feel it's a positive for world development to not take sides. Imagine if everyone was impartial and didn't take sides. We'd probably all be speaking German right now if we didn't take sides and fight against wrong.

Hezbolla on their TV station have a kids show where they have a game where kids trying to assemble a dissassembled AK-47 while blind-folded.

Then we have a woman in Montreal saying 'Hezbolla is our protector' during a press conference. Right here on Canadian soil becuae her family died while living in his home country. I don't feel sorry for her.

I think maybe BC Chick took offense to Mike David saying that she was uninformed. I dont think he meant she was stupid. I think he may have had a good point but did not put it well.

Yes she doesn't know what I meant. Most of the Canadian public is uninformed. They don't know how many poeple come into Canada each month, they don't understand the function of the economy, our national expendatures, and the climate of our country. The reason why is becuase they don't vote regularaly and have a say on policy so keep themselves out of the loop. The gov't is a dictatoriship that funds a left leaning organization called the CBC who's job is to further brainwash the people. Private media cannot compete with the CBC so we don't have a lot of media. Thus there's little choice.

Growing up I had a very Liberal-tainted view because I think they do have the better part of the media.

I completley agree. I felt all the answers to our problems was just to tax people a little bit more. Traffic? Just put tolls on the roads and tax poeple. Environment? Just tax businesses if they don't comply. Hospitals busy? Just make sure everyone pays fees. Hospital needs more fuding?

When I was young, I had this perfect idea of the gov't building buildings per 10,000 people of population and 10% of the area could be hired by gov't. All people would have to do is pay.. i can't remember, I had the math worked out and figured that this would decrease employment by 5% and solve all our problems.

But I was a dumb kid. I was uninformed. I never read into stuff. I just heard headlines and thought my simple could figure out all the solutions to our problems. I see some here with that same mentatlity to be honest. Way out there wacky lib ideas.

I grew up and learned some hard knocks of life. Hard knocks of living in Canada. Met people from all over parts of the world and lived about. I researched for years and read into things myself. The media in Canada is NOT here to help inform people of facts.

Kyoto is a huge deal. Canada puts out 2% of emmisions. Not ONE media organization stops and asks the logical question: "If we only put out 2% of emissions, we is this being made the #1 priority Mr. Dion".

Not once did the media even ask the question. So it's natural to think the worlds going to end if Canada doesn't do something. Most people won't take the time to research stuff on their own. They are like me when I was a teen thinking in abstract ideals and trying to use my un-informed logic to figure stuff out.

BC Chick is atleast smart unlike some others. It's such a shame to see it go to waste. Or for her to allow the media to brainwash her into thinking some issues should be important, when they really aren't.

Just so you know Mike David, I agree that Israel wants peace. But I am saying that I think many of the people who do not back Israel are doing so because they believe Israel is the bad guy oppressor here, which I think is based on bad information.

[BC_chick]

I get upset that a voter like yourself have forgot what being a Canadian means. You have forgot what a border arouond our country, our security and our own issues are. We have Canadians dying on hospital waiting lists, but you don't really care about that. We have young generations of ghettoized muslims who are out to do harm in our own country of Canada and you don't care about that. We have lost 18,000 full time jobs in the last 2 months, yet have let 50,000 people into the country. And you don't care about that.

Instead, your priorities in your life lay with an international issue with Isreal and people on a boat ride who don't consider theselves Canadian. You priorities and concern lay with some woman in Montreal saying 'Hezbollah is our protector". Your concern lay with an abstart, idealism of C02 emisions destroying the world even though we aren't even a major producer of C02 have a plan outlines to deal with this.

It's very upsetting because it's like you've been brainwashed by whomever to believe that these abstract and foreign issues are important. They are not important. Our trade, economy, and healthcare are important. Our country is important.

I think the Lebanese situation showed us that we need to reconsider dual-citizenship issues and I lost my 35 year-old brother in the hospital last year because they could not give him his own room when he got C dif.

Anything else you want to assume about me?

Onto iggy you go jerk.

PS, in case you didn't notice, no-wait times guarantee has DISAPPEARED from Harper's platform.

[Canadian Blue]

I think the Lebanese situation showed us that we need to reconsider dual-citizenship issues and I lost my 35 year-old brother in the hospital last year because they could not give him his own room when he got C dif.

Anything else you want to assume about me?

Onto iggy you go jerk.

PS, in case you didn't notice, no-wait times guarantee has DISAPPEARED from Harper's platform.

I don't see the point of using the ignore feature on a political forum, I mean the debate is fun. As for wait times, what do you propose we do, pump more money into the system, create two tiered health care, or find a middle road so as to free up spaces for those who need life threatning operation's.