Harper - A poor choice for conservatives

[Shakeyhands]

Now the Leader of the opposition at the time however.... well, he just told lies.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

and was very clear about what he would have done...

Do you have any polls taken at the time of the Fox interview to back up your assertion? Or are we just to take you at face value when you call our Prime Minister a liar?

I didn't at the time of writing that, but it only took me about 12 seconds to find one...

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/apr03/parkin.pdf

So, in fact, Stephen Harper is a liar. Right?

Here's another one.

http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/Apri...War_in_Iraq.pdf

[ScottSA]

I remember a leader who stood up and said no, this military action is not justified and we will not be a part of any coalition that doesn't have the sanction of the UN. That took cajones.

How majestic a memory of the event you have. I remember it as the cringing of a snivelling prime minister who wanted the rest of the world to tell him what to do. And that during a time when everyone, including Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals, believed that there were WMD in Iraq.

Not to mention the fact that the US did have the sanction of the UN...just not the support of France and Germany.

[Shakeyhands]

you know what, I take that back, Harpers qualification of the answer proves me wrong.

[Shakeyhands]

I remember a leader who stood up and said no, this military action is not justified and we will not be a part of any coalition that doesn't have the sanction of the UN. That took cajones.

How majestic a memory of the event you have. I remember it as the cringing of a snivelling prime minister who wanted the rest of the world to tell him what to do. And that during a time when everyone, including Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals, believed that there were WMD in Iraq.

Not to mention the fact that the US did have the sanction of the UN...just not the support of France and Germany.

Indeed, I was very proud of Prime Minister Chretien and of being a level headed Canadian.

[M.Dancer]

I remember a leader who stood up and said no, this military action is not justified and we will not be a part of any coalition that doesn't have the sanction of the UN. That took cajones.

How majestic a memory of the event you have. I remember it as the cringing of a snivelling prime minister who wanted the rest of the world to tell him what to do. And that during a time when everyone, including Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals, believed that there were WMD in Iraq.

Not to mention the fact that the US did have the sanction of the UN...just not the support of France and Germany.

Indeed, I was very proud of Prime Minister Chretien and of being a level headed Canadian.

True. He was very prescient. His "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." will forever go down as one of the most inarticulate truisms ever......And it certainly puts in its place the myth that everyone including American liberals and Canadian Liberals were convinced by the inept American dog and pony show that failed to prove anything. Why? Because th proof was incapable of being proven.

[uOttawaMan]

I remember a leader who stood up and said no, this military action is not justified and we will not be a part of any coalition that doesn't have the sanction of the UN. That took cajones.

How majestic a memory of the event you have. I remember it as the cringing of a snivelling prime minister who wanted the rest of the world to tell him what to do. And that during a time when everyone, including Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals, believed that there were WMD in Iraq.

Not to mention the fact that the US did have the sanction of the UN...just not the support of France and Germany.

Indeed, I was very proud of Prime Minister Chretien and of being a level headed Canadian.

No doubt that move took guts! I applaud it sincerely and it turns out he was right all along.

It's too bad he was screwing the taxpayers so hard elsewhere... but c'est la vie right?

[betsy]

I remember a leader who stood up and said no, this military action is not justified and we will not be a part of any coalition that doesn't have the sanction of the UN. That took cajones.

How majestic a memory of the event you have. I remember it as the cringing of a snivelling prime minister who wanted the rest of the world to tell him what to do. And that during a time when everyone, including Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals, believed that there were WMD in Iraq.

Not to mention the fact that the US did have the sanction of the UN...just not the support of France and Germany.

Indeed, I was very proud of Prime Minister Chretien and of being a level headed Canadian.

Level-headed? Yes, level-headed as to how he can butter up to the anti-Bush sentiments of a lot of Canadians....how to win and keep their votes...at a time too when he was facing heavy criticisms because of scandal after scandal turning up under his watch.

This same Prime Minister Chretien - if I'm not mistaken - was only too quick to show his vocal approval and support of Clinton's bombing of Iraq! I know why! Because he would've done the same thing if it were him who was sitting in Clinton's office being serviced by Lewinski! Hey, he knows the effectiveness of distraction!

He used Bush and the bombing of Iraq to distract from his own problems!

Chretien willingly gave his vocal approval and support to a bombing which motive was highly questionable - a distraction over a blowjob - and yet didn't give his support to a neighbor, major trading partner and ally who'd been attacked on its very soil, but went as far as to castigate, ridicule and criticize the US president at every opportunity!

Edited July 26, 2007 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

Chretien willingly gave his vocal approval and support to a bombing which motive was highly questionable - a distraction over a blowjob - and yet didn't give his support to a neighbor, major trading partner and ally who'd been attacked on its very soil, but went as far as to castigate, ridicule and criticize the US president at every opportunity!

So if bombing Iraq allegedly for UNSC vilatins but was really for a blow job, what was invading iraq?

[betsy]

Chretien willingly gave his vocal approval and support to a bombing which motive was highly questionable - a distraction over a blowjob - and yet didn't give his support to a neighbor, major trading partner and ally who'd been attacked on its very soil, but went as far as to castigate, ridicule and criticize the US president at every opportunity!

So if bombing Iraq allegedly for UNSC vilatins but was really for a blow job, what was invading iraq?

Anything would be acceptable reason...including OIL....compared to a blowjob!

[M.Dancer]

Anything would be acceptable reason...including OIL....compared to a blowjob!

I obviously place a higher value on blowjobs than you........

Edited July 26, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Leafless]

His principles may not agree with your own principles. That is not to say that his are not principles.

That it may just happen to coincide with the US interest does not necessarily mean Harper himself does not see it from that same point of view.

If he truly happens to believe that capital punishment is wrong and therefore do not legalize it, does that means he is pandering to those who think the same way?

Without a referendum, of course it means he is pandering to those who think the same way as there is no proof to prove otherwise.

It is apparent you are condoning and are content with the actions of a PM leading a totalitarian government rather than a democratic one.

So if you are say Mr. Harper is a principled prime minister, I must ask you in comparison or based on to what set of values?

[mikedavid00]

It is apparent you are condoning and are content with the actions of a PM leading a totalitarian government rather than a democratic one.

So if you are say Mr. Harper is a principled prime minister, I must ask you in comparison or based on to what set of values?

I completely agree.

[betsy]

His principles may not agree with your own principles. That is not to say that his are not principles.

That it may just happen to coincide with the US interest does not necessarily mean Harper himself does not see it from that same point of view.

If he truly happens to believe that capital punishment is wrong and therefore do not legalize it, does that means he is pandering to those who think the same way?

Without a referendum, of course it means he is pandering to those who think the same way as there is no proof to prove otherwise.

It is apparent you are condoning and are content with the actions of a PM leading a totalitarian government rather than a democratic one.

So if you are say Mr. Harper is a principled prime minister, I must ask you in comparison or based on to what set of values?

Why, should we have a referendum for everything? Especially when it relates to war?

If in case we ever go to war let's say against Lebanon, can you truly say that the decision should depend on the result of a referendum? Bearing in mind that we are a multi-cultural society - would the Lebanese community of Canada ever support an attack on their motherland, regardless whether it is for the best interest of Canada or not?

[mikedavid00]

If in case we ever go to war let's say against Lebanon, can you truly say that the decision should depend on the result of a referendum? Bearing in mind that we are a multi-cultural society - would the Lebanese community of Canada ever support an attack on their motherland, regardless whether it is for the best interest of Canada or not?

The muslims would be against it.

The visible minorities would be against it.

The immigrants would be against it.

The wacko Libs would be against it.

And about 50% ish of the conservatives would be against it.

Any war measures in a refurendum would fail misserably.

Hmmm.. but what about going to war against Isreal?

"For the Lord has chosen Jacob to be his own,

Israel to be his treasured possession. " - Psalm 135

Let's get em!!

Although I am not religious, I will always respect Harper for standing with Isreal. And the CBC would say 'why? wh do you support them?' and harper would keep having to say 'are you dumb? they are the only democratic society in the region and our allies.'

The CBC would end the interview and say 'We invite your calls and feedback on this different, new direction Canada is taking'. And call after call from immigrants and self hating wacko Libs all saying how much they hate the US and Isreal and were pro HEZBOLLA

Edited July 27, 2007 by mikedavid00

[Leafless]

Why, should we have a referendum for everything?

Anything that affects all Canadians, especially constitutional amendments, similar to what they do in the U.S.

Especially when it relates to war?

Canada is not at war. We are participating as an ally pertaining to a war on terrorism, which is not an act of war against Canada.

But this brings up an interesting question. Canada suddenly jumped (relatively ill equipped broken down military) from a peace keeping role to an active role against terrorism because Mr. Harper felt we can do it.

Is this a good thing?

I don't think it is a good thing for the simple reason due to neglect by the Liberal government of Canada's military, it would be simply unrealistic to participate with an under equipped military.

This simply illustrates what totalitarian rule can do to a country relating to its military.

This is why we need a lot more democratic representation by Canadian citizens to avoid the situation Mr. Harper encountered with a decayed military. Their are many other similar issues that should have required democratic participation rather than place the onus on what could be 'faulty' undemocratic totalitarian rule.

If in case we ever go to war let's say against Lebanon, can you truly say that the decision should depend on the result of a referendum? Bearing in mind that we are a multi-cultural society - would the Lebanese community of Canada ever support an attack on their motherland, regardless whether it is for the best interest of Canada or not?

This is a major fault with multiculturalism and why it should never have been implemented initially, especially being entrenched in our constitution.

[Shakeyhands]

man you Conservatives are bitter.

[betsy]

If in case we ever go to war let's say against Lebanon, can you truly say that the decision should depend on the result of a referendum? Bearing in mind that we are a multi-cultural society - would the Lebanese community of Canada ever support an attack on their motherland, regardless whether it is for the best interest of Canada or not?

The muslims would be against it.

The visible minorities would be against it.

The immigrants would be against it.

The wacko Libs would be against it.

And about 50% ish of the conservatives would be against it.

Any war measures in a refurendum would fail misserably.

Then you agree with me that it is absurd to have a referendum decide for us in most cases.

[betsy]

Why, should we have a referendum for everything?

Anything that affects all Canadians, especially constitutional amendments, similar to what they do in the U.S.

Practically everything that our government will decide to do will affect Canadians, whether directly or indirectly.

[betsy]

So if you are say Mr. Harper is a principled prime minister, I must ask you in comparison or based on to what set of values?

Comparison?

Do you mean to compare with the principles of Churchill or Clinton etc.?

Do you mean he has principles just like so-and-so...but they're different?

To whom do you compare your own principles?

Why does it need to have any comparision?

[betsy]

It is apparent you are condoning and are content with the actions of a PM leading a totalitarian government rather than a democratic one.

So if you are say Mr. Harper is a principled prime minister, I must ask you in comparison or based on to what set of values?

I completely agree.

What do you both mean by "totalitarian" government?

Edited July 27, 2007 by betsy

[Argus]

Power at all costs, it's the way to be... really.

It has worked admirably for the Liberal Party these last several decades. They might not get everything they want - immediately - but they keep pandering and paying off Canadians, and over decades of success they have managed to reshape Canada to an unfortunate degree - so that the people of this country are more shallow, less moral, and less self-sufficient - all of which makes for more Liberals.

Slow and patient. It worked for them. After Clark's government got booted over a gas tax the Liberals brought them down over and fought the election on, and then implimented right after the election I stopped having any thoughts about the advisability of telling the truth to the electorate.

[Argus]

Harper may pander to Canadians to win votes - just like Dion and Layton -

BUT unlike Dion and Layton, Harper had shown on two occasions that I know of, he doesn't pander to other world leaders! A wimp or a push-over, he's definitely not!

As a Canadian, I still relish that event when my Prime Minister got the French PM so frustrated during the Lebanon-Israel war ...and eventually got them to capitulate to what he (Harper) wanted them to do.

He fights for his principles.

Principles?

Tell us again, real slow, why Canada is in Afghanistan?

Of course this has nothing to do with pandering to the U.S. and it's interest.

No, it does not.

[Argus]

Harper may pander to Canadians to win votes - just like Dion and Layton -

BUT unlike Dion and Layton, Harper had shown on two occasions that I know of, he doesn't pander to other world leaders! A wimp or a push-over, he's definitely not!

As a Canadian, I still relish that event when my Prime Minister got the French PM so frustrated during the Lebanon-Israel war ...and eventually got them to capitulate to what he (Harper) wanted them to do.

He fights for his principles.

I remember a leader who stood up and said no, this military action is not justified and we will not be a part of any coalition that doesn't have the sanction of the UN. That took cajones.

Are you for real? Chretien bobbed and weaved and waffled for months while the party did in-depth polling to tell them what would get them the most votes from various groups and it came out that this was the best way to go. If the polls had shown that they'd get more votes by going in we would have. Chretien had no noticeable principles on any issue at any time while in office, and his stand on Iraq had nothing to do with balls and everything to do with venal self-interest. It's awful that alledgedly educated Canadians don't know enough to see the difference.

[Argus]

Now the Leader of the opposition at the time however.... well, he just told lies.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

and was very clear about what he would have done...

Do you have any polls taken at the time of the Fox interview to back up your assertion? Or are we just to take you at face value when you call our Prime Minister a liar?

I didn't at the time of writing that, but it only took me about 12 seconds to find one...

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/apr03/parkin.pdf

So, in fact, Stephen Harper is a liar. Right?

Why would you care if Harper was a liar or not? Jean Chretien was notoriously untruthful throughout his time as prime minister, on almost every issue, politically and personally. He was craven and never admitted to being responsible for anything. And yet you clearly admire the man.

So clearly, lying is not a problem for you.

[Argus]

I remember a leader who stood up and said no, this military action is not justified and we will not be a part of any coalition that doesn't have the sanction of the UN. That took cajones.

How majestic a memory of the event you have. I remember it as the cringing of a snivelling prime minister who wanted the rest of the world to tell him what to do. And that during a time when everyone, including Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals, believed that there were WMD in Iraq.

Not to mention the fact that the US did have the sanction of the UN...just not the support of France and Germany.

Indeed, I was very proud of Prime Minister Chretien and of being a level headed Canadian.

No doubt that move took guts! I applaud it sincerely and it turns out he was right all along.

It takes guts for a politician to do something which the electorate, particularly the party's supporters, oppose. Chretien never did that. Chretien took a lot of polls to tell him which way the wind was blowing, and then ran with it. In fact, the sudden announcment of us going to Afghanistan was seen by most as an excuse to "use up" our available troops so he would have an excuse to tell the Americans we weren't available for Iraq.

The Australians went to Iraq. We went to Afghanistan. Who has taken the most casualties by far?