Liberals throw stones while living in glass house - re: Wajid Khan

[BC_chick]

tml,

You start off making case for Canadians being anti-Bush (yourself somewhat included) and you end your post by calling these adversaries "anti-America." These are two very different things.

I agree that we are very dependent on the US. But if this dependence translates into having to agree with what every president of the US does (no matter how idiotic), then perhaps we need to diversify our economic policies as opposed to begrudgingly following madmen down a burning staircase just because we need their trade. How's that for a policy?

Oh, but that's right, when Trudeau proposed exactly that, he was chastised for it.

[tml12]

tml,

You start off making case for Canadians being anti-Bush (yourself somewhat included) and you end your post by calling these adversaries "anti-America." These are two very different things.

I agree that we are very dependent on the US. But if this dependence translates into having to agree with what every president of the US does (no matter how idiotic), then perhaps we need to diversify our economic policies as opposed to begrudgingly following madmen down a burning staircase just because we need their trade. How's that for a policy?

Oh, but that's right, when Trudeau proposed exactly that, he was chastised for it.

The fact that I care about Canadian sovereignty is exactly why I support Harper. I mean, the day we can defend our airspace and borders and actually have an army capable of defending us from a big army (our current army can't even defend Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic from Denmark ) will be the day not only I take Canada seriously but also when the Americans take Canada seriously. I mean, our army is so strapped for cash many of our soldiers in Afghanistan had to but surplus American equipment. But when Harper talks about increasing the army it's "oh no, we are peacekeepers, we can't do that." I call BS...Canadians weren't peacekeepers in World War II...they didn't go to Europe to "mediate peace" between the Axis and Allied Powers.

I did not say Harper had to agree 100% with Bush but I did say while the U.S. President is the commander-in-chief of the army that defends us they have a great degree of leverage.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I agree that we are very dependent on the US. But if this dependence translates into having to agree with what every president of the US does (no matter how idiotic), then perhaps we need to diversify our economic policies as opposed to begrudgingly following madmen down a burning staircase just because we need their trade. How's that for a policy?

Oh, but that's right, when Trudeau proposed exactly that, he was chastised for it.

Our economic relationship with the United States doesn't translate into having to agree with what every President of the US does. Harper hasn't agreed with everything Bush has done. We are not, and will not be, part of the Iraq war. We have expressed our concerns over the Northern passage. Bush did not get *everything* he wanted in the softwood lumber deal.

Trudeau got chastised for implementing FIRA. FIRA rarely blocked any takeovers or asset transfers. All it accomplished was to create a lot of noise about "protecting Canada" and pissing off the Americans.

Trudeau got chasitised for implementing the NEP. It was designed to promote energy self-sufficiency for Canada. It took $100 Billion out of the Alberta economy and ensured that Alberta was the province hardest hit by the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Trudeau's policies on economic nationalism were a nightmare that accomplished nothing.

Due to the nature of our trade and geograpy no degree of diversification could replace the US as our most important trading partner. Due to the relative size of our economies Canada will also be the secondary member of the partnership.

Instead of just attacking Conservatives, why not explain how we could diversify?

[BC_chick]

Try taking another look at Harper forgetting all the far-right accusations people are making. Does it not occur to you that this is ridiculous? Nonetheless people eat it up. He comes across as a rather shy and soft spoken fellow to me. I have yet to hear him say he is going to "smoke em out their holes" like his supposed "clone". Seriously take an honest look. He is a really average person.

Look at all the far-right policies in our nation. Look how hard it is for you people to come on here and criticize Harper. Oh you brave souls. You could face life in prison or execution for this. What martyrs the Liberals are! They are so oppressed. People actually disagree with them and thats so offensive.

You make some good points jefferiah. But IMO, one doesn't need to use cowboy rhetoric to be a right-winger. There are plenty of examples of right-wing governments that did not speak the way Bush does.

Nor did I call him far-right, but rather more to the right than his electorate would like to see in a leader. Examples are - a binary view of morality, tax-cuts for the upper-middle and middle-classes while and paying for it by cutting funding for social-programs, a disregard for the environment and pretty much denying the science behind man-made global-warming (until he realised he's putting the nails on his own coffin), ties with religious groups, and of course, adopting a foreign-policy which is as binary as his personal views of society.

Whether he has it right and Canadians have it wrong or vice versa is a debate beyond the scope of this discussion. The only point I raise, is that according to polls conducted about Canadian attitudes toward society and the world, Harper is out of touch with what the majority of Canadians believe.

Yet CPC supporters blame everything under the sun for the fact that Harper should be more popular than he is, other than considering that maybe it's the CPC policies that don't resonate with Canadians.

[BC_chick]

The fact that I care about Canadian sovereignty is exactly why I support Harper.

[...]

I did not say Harper had to agree 100% with Bush but I did say while the U.S. President is the commander-in-chief of the army that defends us they have a great degree of leverage.

I'm not being patronising here, this is a serious question. But don't these two statements contradict each other? On the one hand you're saying that our dependence on the US puts us in a position where it is in our best interest to support them whether or not we agree with them, and on the other hand you're saying that Harper (the man who you earlier praised for not rattling the relationship with the US) of defending Canadian sovereignty.

[jefferiah]

Well I must apologize to you there. I guess you didnt call him a far right fellow. But really I do think he is doing a good job. I dont think he is such a bad fellow, and really I dont know if he is more to the right than what people want him to be or if he is being portrayed more to the right of what people want him to be.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Yet CPC supporters blame everything under the sun for the fact that Harper should be more popular than he is, other than considering that maybe it's the CPC policies that don't resonate with Canadians.

CPC supporters would rather blame everyone and everything else, than to actually consider that perhaps their own policies are the problem.

Are you adding anything new to the thread with these almost identical quotes?

The CPC isn't blaming everyone and everything else.

The Government has accomplished a lot.

Since you didn't answer this the first time I posted it, I'll reply again.

Only once in the past 35 years has a Federal Government won a majority of the votes cast. Does that mean that the problem with all of those Governments was *their policies*?

[madmax]

Wajid Khan, Wajid Khan.....

Oh yeah, this is the thread

[jdobbin]

Wajid Khan, Wajid Khan.....

Oh yeah, this is the thread

Exactly. And now Khan is Harper's problem. I hope the advice he gave was worth it.

[jbg]

Wajid Khan, Wajid Khan.....

Oh yeah, this is the thread

Exactly. And now Khan is Harper's problem. I hope the advice he gave was worth it.

You have your Stronach, remember.

[jdobbin]

You have your Stronach, remember.

And she didn't help the Liberals win an election, only forestall a defeat and anger the electorate.

Harper had said he would do things differently.

[tml12]

Dear BC Chick,

"I'm not being patronising here, this is a serious question."

I do not think you are being patronising...you are giving me an intellectual workout

"But don't these two statements contradict each other? On the one hand you're saying that our dependence on the US puts us in a position where it is in our best interest to support them whether or not we agree with them, and on the other hand you're saying that Harper (the man who you earlier praised for not rattling the relationship with the US) of defending Canadian sovereignty. "

The two statements do not contradict each other:

1) I support Harper because based on the fact that he wants to strengthen our army it shows me that he wants us to become less dependent on the U.S. military in the long term. Canada once had a strong and proud armed forces that were the envy of the world. In fact, we had the fourth largest military in the world! Today's armed servicemen are still courageous and brave as ever and deserve our respect and complete support. The war on terrorism will hopefully produce another greatest generation. But the Liberals and NDP have got a bad track record of letting our military down. They should not have to rely on surplus American clothing or submarines that do not work, etc.

2) We are dependant on the U.S. to defend us and this puts us in a greater position to have to be accomodating to them whether or not we agree with them. If we were less dependant on the U.S., the Americans would take us more seriously. Of course, we must always be respectful of the Americans as we are more like them than any other country in the world. We watch American TV (many of us own satellites so as to avoid CRTC regulations that force Canadian programming upon us) and, in many respects, are like the junior cousins of the Americans. I want a Canada that is strong enough to stand side-by-side with Britain and the U.S. as global powers.

[BC_chick]

1) I support Harper because based on the fact that he wants to strengthen our army it shows me that he wants us to become less dependent on the U.S. military in the long term. Canada once had a strong and proud armed forces that were the envy of the world. In fact, we had the fourth largest military in the world! Today's armed servicemen are still courageous and brave as ever and deserve our respect and complete support. The war on terrorism will hopefully produce another greatest generation. But the Liberals and NDP have got a bad track record of letting our military down. They should not have to rely on surplus American clothing or submarines that do not work, etc.

2) We are dependant on the U.S. to defend us and this puts us in a greater position to have to be accomodating to them whether or not we agree with them. If we were less dependant on the U.S., the Americans would take us more seriously. Of course, we must always be respectful of the Americans as we are more like them than any other country in the world. We watch American TV (many of us own satellites so as to avoid CRTC regulations that force Canadian programming upon us) and, in many respects, are like the junior cousins of the Americans. I want a Canada that is strong enough to stand side-by-side with Britain and the U.S. as global powers.

For the new millenium, I'm not sure I agree that military might is the way to go in fighting enemies, and in regards to traditional warfare, I personally believe that Canada's neutral foreign-policy would be sufficient in deterring a war.

But I do respect your opinion otherwise.

Thanks for the debate. I agree, it was an intellectual workout indeed.

[tml12]

1) I support Harper because based on the fact that he wants to strengthen our army it shows me that he wants us to become less dependent on the U.S. military in the long term. Canada once had a strong and proud armed forces that were the envy of the world. In fact, we had the fourth largest military in the world! Today's armed servicemen are still courageous and brave as ever and deserve our respect and complete support. The war on terrorism will hopefully produce another greatest generation. But the Liberals and NDP have got a bad track record of letting our military down. They should not have to rely on surplus American clothing or submarines that do not work, etc.

2) We are dependant on the U.S. to defend us and this puts us in a greater position to have to be accomodating to them whether or not we agree with them. If we were less dependant on the U.S., the Americans would take us more seriously. Of course, we must always be respectful of the Americans as we are more like them than any other country in the world. We watch American TV (many of us own satellites so as to avoid CRTC regulations that force Canadian programming upon us) and, in many respects, are like the junior cousins of the Americans. I want a Canada that is strong enough to stand side-by-side with Britain and the U.S. as global powers.

For the new millenium, I'm not sure I agree that military might is the way to go in fighting enemies, and in regards to traditional warfare, I personally believe that Canada's neutral foreign-policy would be sufficient in deterring a war.

But I do respect your opinion otherwise.

Thanks for the debate. I agree, it was an intellectual workout indeed.

Your point that military might may not be the best way to fight enemies in the 21st century is very debatable...I tend to disagree but I do not think any of us can say for sure what kinds of wars we will be fighting in the 21st century. The introduction of terrorism and non-state actors poses a problem for nation-states. Keep in mind by military might I do not just mean combat forces but also law enforcement, intelligence, border guards, domestic (national guard) security, etc. These individuals will be necessary to protect security.

I definitely disagree with your last point. Canada does not have a neutral foreign policy. Right or wrong, this country has always tilted its support toward Israel in the Middle Eastern conflict. Canada fought decisive battles with Britain and the U.S. in World Wars I and II and played a decisive role in Korea. Do not be guilty of believing the Liberal peacekeeping myth of Canada!!! Canada is not seen by other countries as being neutral. And even if it were, individuals that want to wage war with the west will not salvage us because of our supposed "neutrality." Canadians must truly be ready to "stand on guard for thee."

[scribblet]

Back to you know who. He made a pretty good reply in the G & M on the question of resigning.

"Listen to me very carefully, my community is the Canadian community; I am not the ambassador of some country to Canada; I am an MP representing Canadians and my primary interest is Canada's welfare. I am not in politics to represent some overseas group or government. Yes, I am a Muslim, but I cannot be held hostage by self-appointed community leaders who have their own hidden agendas."

[hiti]

Apples to Oranges.

Assadourian and Leung were never sent on taxpayer-funded fact-finding tours and neither ever promised to produce a public report.

Wajid Khan spent tax money and brought back ..... what? We know Steve lies, so is he keeping the report secret because it ii not what he agrees with? Khan probably needs some brainwashing so he speaks proper Steve language.

Wonder who is going to pay the loan to Khan from Khan?

[scribblet]

Apples to Oranges.

Assadourian and Leung were never sent on taxpayer-funded fact-finding tours and neither ever promised to produce a public report.

Wajid Khan spent tax money and brought back ..... what? We know Steve lies, so is he keeping the report secret because it ii not what he agrees with? Khan probably needs some brainwashing so he speaks proper Steve language.

Wonder who is going to pay the loan to Khan from Khan?

Seems to me there are a number of people who lie, and the loan Khan made was a Liberal problem, which they conveniently ignored. Too bad people are only concerned about it now he is not a Liberal.

Assadourian and Leung might not have been paid, but this reflects how the Libs feel about the meaning of a report and responsibility, they obviously place no value on them. Assadourian said in an interview."The whole thing was a lie " at least we know there is a report which we will eventually see. The cost of the trip is well withing treasury guidlines.

Who paid for the Liberal NDP fact finding junket to Lebanon. Considering what the Senate committee on National Security and Defense spent on their aborted trip to Afghanistan, its peanujts, not even in the realm of petty cash. The main problem here is that which is generated by the media and the Liberals. Too bad they weren't so eager to report Khan's problems when he was a Liberal.

This is a hoot considering the millions of stolen $$$ still unaccounted for from the Liberal gov't. l

[hiti]

How about proving what you have posted.

Didn't Khan's riding association go with him to the conservatives, with their loan? And wasn't the riding association deregistered by the Chief Elections Officer for not reporting their activity for 2004 and 2005?

Nobody ever offered to pay Assadourian and Leung. That's why they weren't paid. And if they would have followed through on what they were suppose to do, I am sure that Martin would have put as much stock in their reports as Steve has done with Khan's.

As for political fact finding junkets....The Lebanon trip was sponsored by the National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations. Which Senator trip to Afghanistan are you talking about... in September or December? Who is paying for the Casson junket to Afghanistan right now?

Now tell us all what unaccounted millions of $$$$ you are talking about. It is not enough to keep on making vague statements.