Who Should Lead A New Conservative Party

[PIK]

C-51 is totally blown out of proportion. Check out the americans or even the aussies, to see a bill C-51 with actual teeth.

[Argus]

Yes Harper wanted the attack and his bellicose us vs. them statements and actions ensured it. Why did he want it and act so recklessly? The answer is obvious: to get re-elected.

This is paranoid loony raving akin to those who believe George Bush blew up the World Trade Centre. It discredits any argument you might otherwise make. It discredits you.

[G Huxley]

No it isn't at all. It's reality Argus. You had to see how Harper was acting recklessly creating an us vs. them conflict like Bush did. Sure there's plausible deniability, but the fact is I said before the attacks were inevitable as I was correctly reading Harper:

Harper is trying to get the Islamists riled up so that they attack Canada thus getting him re-elected as he pushes a protection racket so as to drive his poll numbers up. All his party has to get elected is fear and insecurity and that card doesn't work unless there are attacks on Canada.

When the attack happened as expected given his bellicose rhetoric and actions his poll numbers immediately surged. His party went from trailing the liberals by about 10% in the polls to leading the polls and all the rise was attributed correctly by the pollsters due to Harper's talk about security and the need to take action.

At that time the right wingers came out of the wood works and were saying that we need a leader like Harper to defend us. Despite there had only been a couple Islamist attacks on Canadian soil in memory and it was under Harper who cowered away in a closet while his defense minister tweeted about it.

Harper is a criminal who has recklessly endangered and caused harm to our country for his own political benefit. Those who can't see through the charade are simply unwilling to open their eyes and see the obvious.

The attacks were obviously a response to Harper's bellicose rhetoric and open involvement in the Middle East.

I actually agree that Canada should back the Kurds and said so on this board way back, but we should have done it subtley not openly get Canada drawn into a conflict with the Islamists like Harper did which was guaranteed blowback.

Edited August 25, 2015 by G Huxley

[Argus]

No it isn't at all. It's reality Argus. You had to see how Harper was acting recklessly creating an us vs. them conflict like Bush did.

It IS us vs them, insofar as Islamic terrorists go.

Harper is trying to get the Islamists riled up so that they attack Canada thus getting him re-elected

Yeah, that's crap, and nobody sane believes it.

[G Huxley]

"
It IS us vs them, insofar as Islamic terrorists go."

See that's exactly how the neocons including the Conservatives want it to be. The Crusades all over again.

But as they say only the Sith think in absolutes.

It's this Us Vs. Them Crusader mentality which wasn't working for Harper prior to the attacks, nor is it being particularly effective since the novelty and shock of it shot his poll numbers up temporarily before they began to subside again when the initial reaction's effects wore off.

"Yeah, that's crap, and nobody sane believes it." Not true others agree with me.

Many sane people have agreed with me on this. In fact the majority I've discussed it with. Here is a topical post 10 months ago where one such person agreed with me:

http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?16,1013905,1013928#msg-1013928

Edited August 26, 2015 by G Huxley