Tory attacks on Dion

[Hydraboss]

As such, he believes that we simple folks should not have a say in what is good for us, that father dearest knows best, and we will come to accept it once he proves it to us.

Uhmm....this is all politicians.

Remember the beer and popcorn.

[Mad_Michael]

Though, as we've learned about the Conservatives' kissing cousins south of the border...

Evidence?

Evidence of what? That Harper and the Conservatives rely upon US political consultants (and their passion for attack ads)? Or the leveraging of anti-gay policies? Or the Christian fundamentalist/evangelist angle? Or the anti-abortion rhetoric? Or the anti-Kyoto stance. Or the promise of big spending increases and big tax cuts promised this month?

That is all textbook Republican stuff.

[Canadian Blue]

Well, I disagree with that stance. I think Harper is so in love with himself and his ideals that he believes Canadians will come to see how brilliant he is if only he had a chance to prove it. I do believe he is an authoritative leader who believes in a republic more than democracy (no wonder he's so aligned with the Republicans south of the border).

Well now that we've figured out you don't know what you're talking about. A republic is a democracy, except instead of having a monarch, they will have a president. From what I understand Harper is a Monarchist, so you don't have to worry about seeing somebody other then Jean being head of state anytime soon. I believe John Manley was a republican, and wanted to see a president instead of the GG, and I think quite a few Canadian's are leaning towards that position. To say that Harper is an authoritative leader because he wants to bring in a republic is a paradox.

As such, he believes that we simple folks should not have a say in what is good for us, that father dearest knows best, and we will come to accept it once he proves it to us.

I've heard much worse arrogance from politician's over the years. As well I don't see the problem with senate reform, GST tax breaks, and increased military spending. Even though I may not agree with all of Harper's priorities.

And I'm not just making accusations here..... his indifference towards criticism, his lack of diplomacy in criticising his opponents, and his stance on Afghanistan in spite of what other political parties and Canadian public would like to see in him - all examples of my allegations against him.

What does the Canadian public want, I thought they were split 50-50 on Afghanistan. As well the Afghan mission is a continuation of the previous government policy which saw Canadian troops moved to the south. It's ashame that the Liberal party conveniently chose to abandon their previous position simply for a few gains in the polls.

Evidence of what? That Harper and the Conservatives rely upon US political consultants (and their passion for attack ads)? Or the leveraging of anti-gay policies? Or the Christian fundamentalist/evangelist angle? Or the anti-abortion rhetoric? Or the anti-Kyoto stance. Or the promise of big spending increases and big tax cuts promised this month?

Howard Dean was the speaker at the Liberal Party convention. As for the anti-Kyoto stance, the fact is we can't make the targets on time. Climate change is being addressed, and it's good to see the NDP taking a leadership role and engaging in talks with the government to bring about a better plan instead of criticizing simply for partisan gain and nothing else. Anti-gay policies, like what, having a free vote in the common's which was defeated, that's not very scary.

With some people you'd think the Parliament buildings had just burned down.

[BC_chick]

Well now that we've figured out you don't know what you're talking about. A republic is a democracy, except instead of having a monarch, they will have a president.

Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about.... Republics can be a monarchy OR a democracy. But a republic is still governed by a small handful of people as opposed a large group of elected representatives.

I thought they [Canadians] were split 50-50 on Afghanistan

Most agree that Harper government has not explained the mission enough, and most are for concentrating on reconstruction rather than combat and aggression.

As well the Afghan mission is a continuation of the previous government policy which saw Canadian troops moved to the south. It's ashame that the Liberal party conveniently chose to abandon their previous position simply for a few gains in the polls.

They didn't. They thought that after six years it's time to reassess the situation to better reflect present times. You know.... kinda like Blair did with Iraq.....

Are you suggesting that a policy must remain the same even if it's been shown to be futile and ineffective?

[Canadian Blue]

Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about.... Republics can be a monarchy OR a democracy. But a republic is still governed by a small handful of people as opposed a large group of elected representatives.

Definition of a Republic: political system with elected representatives: a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them

Wow, scary. Didn't you just contradict yourself.

Most agree that Harper government has not explained the mission enough, and most are for concentrating on reconstruction rather than combat and aggression.

Once again, outside of obscure terms like "aggression", how do you propose we should be building infrastructure while we are getting shot at.

They didn't. They thought that after six years it's time to reassess the situation to better reflect present times. You know.... kinda like Blair did with Iraq.....

Not really, they knew about the possible casualties, and changed their policy after getting into opposition seeing what kind of a political gain could be made by opposing the war.

Are you suggesting that a policy must remain the same even if it's been shown to be futile and ineffective?

No, however the previous government knew what was going to happen once we went to southern Afghanistan. They had simply changed their position due to the poll's. We were being told while the Liberal's were in power of the casualties which would be coming.

[na85]

CB is correct about the definition of a Republic.

dictionary.com also lists:

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

[Canadian Blue]

I like how people have to make up stuff just to excuse their fear of Stephen Harper. I'm not voting for, or even support the conservatives, but I don't like to buy into this paranoia that many people have.

[BC_chick]

CB is correct about the definition of a Republic.

dictionary.com also lists:

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

From his earlier post.....

A republic is a democracy, except instead of having a monarch, they will have a president.

From Britannica:

The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.

Therefore, a republic can ALSO be a democracy, but not necessarily.

[madmax]

del

[na85]

CB is correct about the definition of a Republic.

dictionary.com also lists:

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

From his earlier post.....

A republic is a democracy, except instead of having a monarch, they will have a president.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

CB is correct; a republic does not have a monarch as you suggested previously.

[na85]

I seem to remember that attack ads were not allowed in Canada, is this true? Perhaps it's only during an election campaign.

Either way, my stance is that running ads that focus on the negative aspects of your opponents rather than your positive aspects is evidence of a weak platform, a weak leader, or a little mix of both. It's a dirty tactic, and if the Libs did it I'd feel the same way.

[geoffrey]

Most agree that Harper government has not explained the mission enough, and most are for concentrating on reconstruction rather than combat and aggression.

Rebuilding while the rest of the allies bombed Berlin wouldn't make much sense, I think most Canadians have at least a small standard of intelligence and can see that. There is no point in building a school if the Taliban blows it up the next day.

But why does the government have to explain everything, people should research and find things out on their own. People that rely on the government to explain itself on everything are the most quickly misled by a regime that is rowing down the wrong stream.

IMO, only an idiot would expect the government to explain themself. The rest of the sane will look into matter ourselves.

I see this alot with journalists. They think Harper is secretive because he doesn't spoon feed them their mashed carrots everyday. It's a sad case in the media. When did journalists stop trying to find the story themselves? Instead, they spin press releases for a living.

From another perspective, what's the point in explaining the mission if no one believes it when he does?

[Catchme]

IMO, only an idiot would not expect the government to explain themself.

[geoffrey]

IMO, only an idiot would not expect the government to explain themself.

I tend not to trust the crap that government throws our way most days. So whats the point in them doing it at all.

[BC_chick]

Not sure what you're getting at here.

CB is correct; a republic does not have a monarch as you suggested previously.

I suggested no such thing, perhaps you should not have conveniently snipped out my the Britannica definition.

As Britannica indicated, a republic refers to the constitutional appointment of an executive leader. As such, it can be a democratic republic (as Britannica suggested most modern republics are).... ****OR*** it can also be a monarchy. (Don't want you to miss that "or" again).

I think you cut out the Britannica definition on purpose so you wouldn't have to admit to being wrong. Or else, you lack reading comprehension, in which case.... that's your problem.

[na85]

I suggested no such thing

Really?

Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about.... Republics can be a monarchy OR a democracy. But a republic is still governed by a small handful of people as opposed a large group of elected representatives.?

Republics can be a monarchy OR a democracy.

Republics can be a monarchy

Looks to me like you just suggested that a Republic can have a monarch.

[na85]

I think you cut out the Britannica definition on purpose so you wouldn't have to admit to being wrong. Or else, you lack reading comprehension, in which case.... that's your problem.

Actually I left it out so that it would be evident to which part of your post I was responding, but thanks for insulting my intelligence.

You're referring to this definition, I presume.

The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary.A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.

Perhaps YOU lack reading comprehension. It says right there that the term was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. In a monarchy, leadership is passed by heredity.

Ergo, a Republic does ****NOT*** have a monarch. (Don't want you to miss that "not" again).

[Canadian Blue]

As Britannica indicated, a republic refers to the constitutional appointment of an executive leader. As such, it can be a democratic republic (as Britannica suggested most modern republics are).... ****OR*** it can also be a monarchy. (Don't want you to miss that "or" again).

No, read the highlighted portion of the quote below. IS NOT a monarchy or hereditary head of state.

I'm not sure, your paranoia was a little bit worrying for me. As well I think you should stop criticizing others as you didn't really understand that sentence yourself.

Here is the definition of a Republic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Republic

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

So let me get this straight, Harper want's to bring in a government were the supreme power rests in the voters who elect representatives, and wants to get rid of the Monarchy. Is this what you were getting at.

BTW: Canada is currently a Constitutional Monarchy.

[Topaz]

I'm fairly certain that the media would not have been so critical of Dion's leadership if the Conservatives, aided by the attack/information ads, had not forced the issue. Harper has done a masterful job at defining Dion - and in a more truthful fashion than Chretien and Martin did in continually demonizing Harper for the past three years - far, far right wing....take away your rights, destroy Canada....soldiers in the city....stack the courts with right wing judges....bush clone....war monger......against immigration, blah, blah, blah, over and over. If the Conservatives don't stick it to the Liberals, the Liberals have proven that they will go to any lengths to stay in power - so how low would they go to regain power? Kill the beast while you have a chance.

Lets remember that, Harper only has a minority government, what kind of a PM would he be if he had a majority power and I think this power would go to his head and I fear that we would have a Harris/Bush government! He'd be the PM to bring back the draft. After all, you can't build up the military with no human beings to use all that equipment being ordered!

[na85]

Lets remember that, Harper only has a minority government, what kind of a PM would he be if he had a majority power and I think this power would go to his head and I fear that we would have a Harris/Bush government! He'd be the PM to bring back the draft. After all, you can't build up the military with no human beings to use all that equipment being ordered!

Don't you think that you're overstating your case just a little? The electorate would not stand to see the draft reinstated.

[na85]

Gah! Sorry, double post removed. Stupid internet.

[na85]

BTW: Canada is currently a Constitutional Monarchy.

I think we also qualify as a Parliamentary Democracy

[noahbody]

BTW: Canada is currently a Constitutional Monarchy.

I think we also qualify as a Parliamentary Democracy

When you're a captain a ship in the middle of the ocean, you can go whatever direction the majority of the crew in your ship want to go and they'll think you're a wonderful captain. When you're approaching icebergs, a good captain will take the wheel and responsibility for the ship and crew. Canada's been approaching many icebergs for years, expecially in heath care with the aging population. I see only one leader with the guts to be able to take the wheel on issues like these. Should Dion become Captain, we'll all be holding on to a piece of the ship like Leonardo saying goodbye to Rose.

[Canadian Blue]

Lets remember that, Harper only has a minority government, what kind of a PM would he be if he had a majority power and I think this power would go to his head and I fear that we would have a Harris/Bush government! He'd be the PM to bring back the draft. After all, you can't build up the military with no human beings to use all that equipment being ordered!

This isn't really about debate, it's more about fear than anything now. I doubt that most Conservative MP's would even support the draft as that would be suicide. From what I gather quite a few recruits are still coming in, so I don't see people being forced in anytime soon.

Stop using second hand arguments from the United States people, we aren't the US. Even they don't have the draft and GWB is president.

[Argus]

"Why are fringe leftists so ashamed of what they are they can't admit it?"

Sorta like how the CPCers have hissy-fits whenever someone correctly points out that Harper is a neo-con?

You don't even know what a "neo con" is, much less own the ability to compare it to conservativism. As far as you're concerned anyone not on the left side of the political spectrum can be dismissed with the all enclusive pejorative sneer "neo con".