Topic: Time for Harper to go?

[trailertrash]

I liked it a lot better when people stayed with the party they started with.  They didn't cross the floor every time the wind changed directions.  When we elect our MPs now, we don't know which party they're going to end up with.  I would never have voted for the Reform Party, but here we are with Stephen Harper as PM.  I have to say, though, that there are some things he has done that I agree with.  It seems, however, in my humble opinion, that for every step he takes forward, he take two steps back.

Although I'm straight, I have to say that if Harper manages to reverse the same sex marriage legislation, I will be totally pissed.

[trailerchick]

It's all smoke and mirrors. Harper is shrewed enough to understand that overturning the same sex marriage legislation means a Charter of Rights nightmare for him.

He's only doing this to pander to his steadily growing religious base. He knows he'll never get the votes to overturn it and I don't think he's foolish enough to test the courts and the Nation by invoking the not-withstanding clause......but at least the evangelicals will think he tried.....

[Cappy]

They're all fucked in my books. It's just in different positions so at least they are mixing it up. With the way the Libs ran the previous gov, I'm not sure how anyone can say Harper is worse.

[Dump Bees]

Thanks for your reply Trailerchick.  It was a great read.

When I look at Harper I see an ideologue and not a Politician representing the people. When half your Country has issue with our presence in Afghanistan then you bloody well better have a debate on the issue before you make a decision.And I'm talking about a real debate,not a hastily pulled together one that gives no one else the chance to be prepared with their arguments.

I just want to clarify that it wasn't the CPC that sent our troops on this current mission.  It was in fact the Liberals who did this and I don't recall much of a debate on the subject last year. The number of deaths and heavy fighting that happend this year were not Harpers fault and would have occured if the Liberals were still in power.  To many people don't realize this distinction.

Harper's hasty debate was on extending the mission.  He did not send them there.  Should that have been handled differently?  Probably but its not something thats new and the Liberlas have been just as guilty of it in the past too.

We were under no imminent threat.

Does that mean we don't help other people who need it?  I sometimes think Canadians only want to help when its easy and not just because its the right thing to do.  We are there as a part of NATO and under a UN mandated mission.  Sure its nice to wear a blue beret all the time as it makes us feel nice but we did that in Rwanda and 500 000 poeple died cause the UN tied the hands of the troops on the ground.  (Shake Hands With the Devil should be required reading for everybody.) 

The problem with Afganistan is Iraq.  After 9/11 Bush had the world at his feet and alot of sympathy from the world.  He invaded Afganistan because thats were the terrorists were based from and the Taliban were aiding them.  For the most part people had no problem with going in to get rid of the regime.. It was seen as the right thing to do.

Then his inner circle made the disasterous decsion to invade Iraq in the spring of 2003..  (Read the book Fiasco by Thomas Ricks.  Fascinating look at how incompetent Bush and his cronies are when it came to Iraq.  I couldn't put it down.)  So now both wars are lumped together and put under the same category by most people who really don't understand the situation.

Kyoto:

Harper says he's going to scrap it and true to his word he does. BUT before he does, he presents to the populace that while he believes Kyoto doesn't work ,if you elect his government they will put together an environmental package to replace Kyoto, one in fact that will be even better. Fair enough.
But this is not what has happened. To date his Government has come up with squat.
We received a failing grade from the Sierra club this year and Rona Ambrose seems to have a nasty habit of skipping important Environmental conferences. I mean shit, if you aren't even going to sit at the table then what makes you think you should have any input at all?

My feelings on Kyoto are this.  Its a nice feel good agreement thats not worth the paper its printed on.  The biggest polluters are exempt  ie. China and India. We signed on and the Americans didn't which Martin was quick to point out in Montreal during the last election campaign. (Cheapshot at the Americans) However the facts are their emmissions went down and ours went up.  Who was enviroment minister during that time?  Mr. Dion who is now the new leader of the Liberal party. 

Kyoto was never going to work no matter how touchy feely it sounded and felt.  I don't know enough about Hapers plan to know whats involved so I will reserve comment.  As for Ambrose yes she was awarded the fossil of the year but I am pretty sure Dion was awarded the same thing last year but you never hear about it.  Make no mistake I am worried about the enviroment.  I just want to see a plan thats sensible and will have an effect. Its too important to screw up. 

And then there was the Global Aids conference in which Harper refused to attend.It was only afterwords when he got public shit for it did he come up with some lame excuse. Ya..he was "securing " the North

I will post a link to this article cause I thinks it sums it up best on the whole AIDS conference which I felt was such a non issue.

Aids Conference

an excerpt...

As for daycare I totally understand that whole situation.  My wife and I have our 9 month old son in daycare currently.  Steve's 100 bucks a month currently pays for about 2 days which is really nothing.  I know it was an election stunt and pretty much ineffective.

But hey the Liberlas were promising a daycare program for 13 years when they were in power.  Only time you ever heard of it was election time and then it disappeared again.  And to be honest I am not sure I would trust and government with a program like that as it would just be a bloated mess like the gun registry.

My wife is upset as she thinks parents should be encouraged to stay at home instead of putting their kids in daycare.  If a party would come up with a plan that encouraged that through tax breaks etc.  I know my wife and I would be very interested.


And to Saucy Bastard

Harper reeks of GWB's ass , and GWB reeks of corporate American global agenda. Why play along with the bullies who have angered so many peoples of the world. The only reason that we need to expand our military , beyond protecting our geographic borders , is to put our asses on the line for another countries greedy agendas...

You know I see this written all the time and I start to think that people who say stuff like that just repeat what they hear from TV or somebody else without really thinking about it.  So my friend if you are going to put a statement up like that lets see you put up somefacts to prove your point instead of just posting the crap you did.  Trailerchick wrote an excellent post that expained her convictions and while I may not agree with all of it I respect the effort and appreciate the time she took to repond to my original post.  You just look like a troll.  So please I urge you expand of your views as I would be interested to hear more.


I am not a Harper lover I just felt he was the best choice during the last election.  I was very angered by how he accepted Emerson into the party and gave him a cabinet posistion after he crossed the floor.  It really pissed me off.  Also the parachuting of an unelected Fortier into a cabinet posistion was a really bad move.

Now to finish up I will probably vote for Harper in the next election.  While its easy to dump on him he has only been in power for 8 months as opposed to 13 years for the Liberals.  I think its early to be to critical yet.  I am waiting to see who the next leader of the Liberals will be after Dion.  I just think he is the same old thing we have seen before.

I really believe Harper and his government is held to a much higher account then the Liberals ever were during their time in power. IMO he is no worse then they ever were.  Its not fair but it is the reality he faces.  The Liberals are the masters of making anyone who isn't one of them look like the boogeyman.

Just because I support Harper doesn't mean I like George Bush and thats goes for most people who suport the CPC.  I think the man is the worst president the country has seen in ages. I was smiling during the mid-term elections when his party got the spanking they deserved.  He is a total trainwreck.

Anyways sorry for the long post but I look forward to seeing any replys.

Cheers,  Jeff   




   





   





 

[babyz]

Bye bye Harper!!! We need some Liberals up in this piece!

[Dump Bees]

It's all smoke and mirrors. Harper is shrewed enough to understand that overturning the same sex marriage legislation means a Charter of Rights nightmare for him.

Totally agree.  He will have his vote and it will be defeated.  He can say to his group of supporters that "Hey I tried but parliament spoke and I have to accept their wishes"  He doesn't break his promise and the issue will disappear.

He's only doing this to pander to his steadily growing religious base. He knows he'll never get the votes to overturn it and I don't think he's foolish enough to test the courts and the Nation by invoking the not-withstanding clause......but at least the evangelicals will think he tried....

I am sure that he does have his core religous folks who support him but I wonder how big it is.  I highly doubt that its anything like parts of the US whichs is kind of scary.  In conversations with people from my church i have found its about half and half on people who like or dislike him.  Its not however a evangelical church so that may explain it.

As a personal note this issue was never a factor in my voting.  Keep it, scrape it whatever.  I don't really care.  I have enough other stuff to be concerned about.

Cheers, Jeff

[shake]

Then his inner circle made the disasterous decsion to invade Iraq in the spring of 2003..  (Read the book Fiasco by Thomas Ricks.  Fascinating look at how incompetent Bush and his cronies are when it came to Iraq.  I couldn't put it down.)  So now both wars are lumped together and put under the same category by most people who really don't understand the situation.

I honestly believe, and I'm not the only one, that if the Cons were in power at that time Canada would have gone to Iraq.
Here's a link that supports that in case anybody is interested

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/iraq.html

Harper is a very dangerous man, something I think is supported by trailerchick's original link on page 1 of this thread.

[Saucy Bastard]

And to Saucy Bastard
 You just look like a troll. 

 

I know yer not here to enter any popularity contests , but there's no need to spout that kinda saucy crap 

I really don't have the time or mental energy these days to expand on my views , that's why I'm thankfull for TC.....

[KarateCollie]

Politicians make my head spin. They're all full of crap. It was nice of Harper to give us this Universal Child Benefit ($100 per child under 6), but you have to claim it on your income tax. What a dick! Thanks but no thanks.

[Drunk_As_Fuck]

The I see it ALL politicians are greasy bastards.  I trust none of them and in some ways fear them all.  As far as Harper goes, I do believe that if left in office for a long term his efforts would be detrimental to Canada as a whole based on his policies and his views as of this time.  That said, in all reality we are looking at an election in six to nine months max - let's just see what happens then.  Now the Liberal's actually have a leader let's see what their policies and postions will be.  Any way ya cut it and no matter who gets elected this one is a no win situation for the people of Canada .

Politicians make my head spin. They're all full of crap. It was nice of Harper to give us this Universal Child Benefit ($100 per child under 6), but you have to claim it on your income tax. What a dick! Thanks but no thanks.

Good example of why they are greasy KC.  On one hand they say "We are going to help you and give you this benefit of !100 per child under 6 to help make life in Canada better for you".  On the other hand they turn around and say "Well we need to be fiscally responsible so we can ensure Canada remains a great place to live so we need to tax that benifit we gave you.  If we didn't do it we would not be a responsible government".  I'm tellin' ya count  your fingers and check your wallet and your watch after dealing with those shifty bastards.

[trailerchick]

I appreciate your thoughts Jeff.

Totally agree.  He will have his vote and it will be defeated.  He can say to his group of supporters that "Hey I tried but parliament spoke and I have to accept their wishes"  He doesn't break his promise and the issue will disappear.

Fair enough.But to me that's campaigning. Right now Parliament should be governing,not debating morals issue's to satisfy Stephen's base.

I am sure that he does have his core religious folks who support him but I wonder how big it is.  I highly doubt that its anything like parts of the US whichs is kind of scary.  In conversations with people from my church i have found its about half and half on people who like or dislike him.  Its not however a evangelical church so that may explain it.

I would say it's probably about the same at my Church possibly even slightly left of centre.
But like you I don't go to an Evangelical Church. I go to United...so it's a fairly benign kinda worship. Tends to the causes of social justice and whatnot.

But I do believe the Evangelical movement is making or attempting to infiltrate at the political level and making serious inroads with a religiously inclined PM.. Do I have a problem with an Evangelical holding office? Not in principle,but if it shapes his policies then ya I do.

And it is a growing.I believe and I'll have to check this, that it is only 2nd to Islam as the fastest growing religious movement. That is a potentially big voting base. If you read the article I posted in this thread it gives some examples of how the religious right is quietly but methodically growing in influence.

Or read Marci MacDonald's article published in The Walrus awhile back "Blind Trust". She wrote an incredibly in depth report on this very issue.

Cheers!

[Dump Bees]

I honestly believe, and I'm not the only one, that if the Cons were in power at that time Canada would have gone to Iraq.
Here's a link that supports that in case anybody is interested

You could say that about the Liberals if Martin was in power.  He supporrted going into Iraq too at one time.

However its a moot point based on speculation.  Thank god we never did go into Iraq although I am not sure what role if any we would have played.

[shake]

I honestly believe, and I'm not the only one, that if the Cons were in power at that time Canada would have gone to Iraq.
Here's a link that supports that in case anybody is interested

You could say that about the Liberals if Martin was in power.  He supporrted going into Iraq too at one time.

However its a moot point based on speculation.  Thank god we never did go into Iraq although I am not sure what role if any we would have played.

Yeah that link touches on that and suggests that yes you "could say that about the Liberals if Martin was in power" but I don't believe that would have happened.  The case is much stronger as Harper being the one that would have done whatever it took to send our troops to Iraq.  I know you aren't quite convinced that he is a religious fanatic that would have taken those steps because he, like Bush, believes God is on his side, but I am.  (For reasons outlined earlier so I won't get into them again).

[trailerchick]

DBees,I missed your other post...sorry that's why I didn't respond 

Thanks for your response.

I just want to clarify that it wasn't the CPC that sent our troops on this current mission.  It was in fact the Liberals who did this and I don't recall much of a debate on the subject last year. The number of deaths and heavy fighting that happend this year were not Harpers fault and would have occurred if the Liberals were still in power.  To many people don't realize this distinction.

Harper's hasty debate was on extending the mission.  He did not send them there.  Should that have been handled differently?  Probably but its not something thats new and the Liberals have been just as guilty of it in the past too.

 

Fair enough. And yes it was wrapped in the cozy term "peacekeeping" which did make it an easy sell to an idealistic nation giving  no real sense of urgency for debate.
But remembering that no matter how much we compare what the Libs did the issue at hand is the current government.Believe me...I have lot's and lot's of beefs with the Liberal Party.I don't even vote for them. The fact still stands that I believe he was hasty and cagey about extending our mission. It felt rushed which makes me suspicious.

It was at this point that I think most of the Nation actually woke up to our presence in the region.As you pointed out we were already there,but didn't seem to be paying much attention.

Does that mean we don't help other people who need it?  I sometimes think Canadians only want to help when its easy and not just because its the right thing to do.  We are there as a part of NATO and under a UN mandated mission.  Sure its nice to wear a blue beret all the time as it makes us feel nice but we did that in Rwanda and 500 000 people died cause the UN tied the hands of the troops on the ground.  (Shake Hands With the Devil should be required reading for everybody.)

The problem with Afghanistan is Iraq.  After 9/11 Bush had the world at his feet and alot of sympathy from the world.  He invaded Afghanistan because thats were the terrorists were based from and the Taliban were aiding them.  For the most part people had no problem with going in to get rid of the regime.. It was seen as the right thing to do.

Then his inner circle made the disastrous decision to invade Iraq in the spring of 2003..  (Read the book Fiasco by Thomas Ricks.  Fascinating look at how incompetent Bush and his cronies are when it came to Iraq.  I couldn't put it down.)  So now both wars are lumped together and put under the same category by most people who really don't understand the situation.

I have issue's with Afghanistan separately from Iraq. I believe that we are there,wether we know it not to help fulfill a bigger agenda.

Domestically, it puts the nation "at War". I believe this perception is used to install us with fear...the great social controller. Strauss,whom the Neo-cons are great students of had this all figured out. To control masses one must use 2 basic elements. Find a common cause or enemy to rally National pride around and the other  is Fear.

Phrases like:

"We're bringing democracy"

"We're fighting the terrorists"

"We're freeing the women"

"We're ousting the evil Taliban"

Are rallying cries. I mean who would argue against that? What's not talked about is big Oil's interest in the region:

this article sums it up.

http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

So basically wether we call it peacekeeping or military action I don't believe we are there for the reasons sold to us.

My feelings on Kyoto are this.  Its a nice feel good agreement thats not worth the paper its printed on.  The biggest polluters are exempt  ie. China and India. We signed on and the Americans didn't which Martin was quick to point out in Montreal during the last election campaign. (Cheapshot at the Americans) However the facts are their emissions went down and ours went up.  Who was environment minister during that time?  Mr. Dion who is now the new leader of the Liberal party.

Kyoto was never going to work no matter how touchy feel it sounded and felt.  I don't know enough about Hapers plan to know whats involved so I will reserve comment.  As for Ambrose yes she was awarded the fossil of the year but I am pretty sure Dion was awarded the same thing last year but you never hear about it.  Make no mistake I am worried about the environment.  I just want to see a plan thats sensible and will have an effect. Its too important to screw up.

Again,the Libs did a shitty job,I don't disagree. But they are not in power right now.

Kyoto was not perfect,but I feel it was at least a starting point. Something that we could use as a jumping point for discussion. Again I feel that the way the Cons have conducted themselves in their supposed attempt at creating something new has fallen seriously short.
The bottom line and we all know it, is it comes down to $$$. Environment vs Economy.
I'm assuming with such rich resources in Alberta and Canadians liking their cushy lifestyles that Economy will win out. At this point we don't even attend all our meetings. The days of being the smugly "environmental" Country are behind us now.

What I didn't like about the non attendance at the Aids conference is that it reveals something within the Party and I believe it was a calculated move on his part to pander to his Christian base.

Anyhow, this long enough already. Thanks again for the responses.

[trailerchick]

***Bump for fascism****

if anyone actually gives a shit....

Environment Canada scientists told to toe the line

Margaret Munro, Canwest News Service Published: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Environment Canada has "muzzled" its scientists, ordering them to refer all media queries to Ottawa where communications officers will help them respond with "approved lines."

The new policy, which went into force in recent weeks and sent a chill through the department research divisions, is designed to control the department's media message and ensure there are no "surprises" for Environment Minister John Baird and senior management when they open the newspaper or turn on the television, according to documents obtained by Canwest News Service.

[walterx2]

***Bump for fascism****

if anyone actually gives a shit....

Environment Canada scientists told to toe the line

Margaret Munro, Canwest News Service Published: Thursday, January 31, 2008

Environment Canada has "muzzled" its scientists, ordering them to refer all media queries to Ottawa where communications officers will help them respond with "approved lines."

The new policy, which went into force in recent weeks and sent a chill through the department research divisions, is designed to control the department's media message and ensure there are no "surprises" for Environment Minister John Baird and senior management when they open the newspaper or turn on the television, according to documents obtained by Canwest News Service.

From Jan 2006.

Welcome to our world. Its like these guys have a play book that they follow.
 
To take another example, scientific warnings about the catastrophic consequences of unchecked global warming were censored by a political appointee in the White House who had no scientific training. And today one of the leading scientific experts on global warming in NASA has been ordered not to talk to members of the press and to keep a careful log of everyone he meets with so that the Executive Branch can monitor and control his discussions of global warming.