Political Crossfire Forums

[Boondoggle]

Looks like F-18s could be deployed to Afghanistan next:

Quote: OTTAWA—Just a month after the defence department denied any plans to dispatch CF-18 fighter jets to Afghanistan, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has opened the door to a possible deployment.

The Star

[Snake]

Ok, soooo, what are you shootin' for here Tex?

[Refrozen Seabass]

On the one hand, maybe there were no plans when he made the comment.

On the other hand, the Harper government is not so on the ball, and certainly not honest with the people it claims to represent. This is but one example.

[L337SIMBA]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: On the one hand, maybe there were no plans when he made the comment.

On the other hand, the Harper government is not so on the ball, and certainly not honest with the people it claims to represent. This is but one example.

Mmk seabass. where has the harper government not been on the ball, and not been honest with teh people?

Waiting again for your reply :wink:
nandan

[Refrozen Seabass]

Putting a self-admitted free-market libertarian and a creationist who used to be President of Focus On The Family Canada in charge of the environment was not on the ball: the first cannot be trusted in this matter; the second unfit for an office requiring some knowledge of things like 'reality' and 'science'.

Not letting the press have access to Canadian corpses being flown home from Afghanistan was also a dropped ball, but PR isn't as important as policy.

Then you'll recall the accusation that all the Liberal leadership candidates were 'anti-Israel'. That's skirting Republican territory, Steve.

You'll also recall appointing non-elected civilian Michael Fortier to the Cabinet after speaking out against it during the election. That's dishonest. Unless he had to do it because no elected Conservatives are capable of doing the job. Then it's a dropped ball. I suspect the former.

And let us not forget the Harper solution to the problem of daycare: $100/child/month. Whether that buys a month of daycare or not. Whether there's actually a daycare facility fit for leaving children in or not. That's not a solution at all.

I know all this, and I don't even follow Canadian politics that closely.

[Mikate8]

Sounds like trouble in paradise, hmm? Oh well, nobodys perfect. Even though other countries yell at America. Is it cause they don't have apple pie and guns? No just kidding. Politicians lie, nothing new.

[Refrozen Seabass]

There was a time when one could ignore Canadian politics. The script didn't change much, no matter who ran the show. Then Harper came along. Bush Lite is a good description, right down to the homophobia and asking God to bless us (what if something bad happens here? Does this mean God has forsaken us? Will this be Harper's fault?). Our system doesn't allow for quite the same lack of accountability as the United States', but there's no doubt in my mind Harper wishes it did.

I've never said Canada was paradise. I've been unhappy with my provincial government for better than 10 years. I'm beginning to feel the same way about the feds now, too.

[Snake]

Wait, Canada has politics outside of seperatists (whatever they are)?!? Nah, I'm just f*ckin with you...

[L337SIMBA]

Refrozen Seabass never has a rebuttle to my comments. Cmon man!

nandan

[Mikate8]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: There was a time when one could ignore Canadian politics. The script didn't change much, no matter who ran the show. Then Harper came along. Bush Lite is a good description, right down to the homophobia and asking God to bless us (what if something bad happens here? Does this mean God has forsaken us? Will this be Harper's fault?). Our system doesn't allow for quite the same lack of accountability as the United States', but there's no doubt in my mind Harper wishes it did.

I've never said Canada was paradise. I've been unhappy with my provincial government for better than 10 years. I'm beginning to feel the same way about the feds now, too.

Canada being a paradise was meant for douches that act like America is the worst country in the world. Because they hate my pie :cry: and freedom :cry:

[Snake]

I want some pie :(

[Boondoggle]

Looks like a sampling of the Harper eats babies crowd.

Media coverage of dead soldiers is left up to the families, which is the way it should be. If they don't want cameras in their faces, they shouldn't have to deal with that. Having said that, I think there's been plenty of coverage.

The money for child care was never meant to cover everything, but rather to make it easier for people that are in a bit of a financial pinch. There is such thing as responsibility, and if you're a parent, YOU are responsible for your children not the government.

The policy on the environment may be a bit ify, but same can be said with the US opposition to Kyoto, yet the US has a better track record on the environment. So, I'm willing to give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

Same crowd said that the Conservatives would replace the surplus with deficits because of increased military spending to join Bush's wars. Well, $13 billion has been put down on the debt despite increased military spending, and Canada hasn't gone beyond Afghanistan. What I want to know is how those people can justify expecting the military to do more with less year after year while they have a nice surplus.

I don't mean to sound partisan, but the Liberal track record when it comes to the military over the last decade has been pathetic, and the current government, I think, is correcting that. Will they get everything else right? Of course not. No government does, but so far, I can live with it.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Boondoggle wrote: Looks like a sampling of the Harper eats babies crowd.

No. I'm part of the 'Harper's a gay-hating ndustry stooge and Yes-man to Bush' crowd.

Quote: Media coverage of dead soldiers is left up to the families, which is the way it should be. If they don't want cameras in their faces, they shouldn't have to deal with that. Having said that, I think there's been plenty of coverage.

Harper wanted it to be otherwise.

Quote: The money for child care was never meant to cover everything, but rather to make it easier for people that are in a bit of a financial pinch. There is such thing as responsibility, and if you're a parent, YOU are responsible for your children not the government.

I don't care about ideology, I care about results. $100/month doesn't get results. Seems to have bought a few votes, though.

Quote: The policy on the environment may be a bit ify

You are the master of understatement.

Quote: but same can be said with the US opposition to Kyoto

Indeed. But so what? We signed a treaty. For us to abandon it after signing it is disgraceful. It's shames Americans when the US does it too.

Quote: yet the US has a better track record on the environment.

Umm...which bit? 'The Environment' covers a lot of ground, ha ha, and not all enviromental policies concern greenhouse gas emissions.

Your comparison serves no purpose. Conservative environmental policy is what it is. It's effective or it's not. Comparing it to America's policies might be interesting, but it doesn't serve as a defence of any sort.

Quote: So, I'm willing to give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

Benefit of what doubt?

Quote: Same crowd said that the Conservatives would replace the surplus with deficits because of increased military spending to join Bush's wars. Well, $13 billion has been put down on the debt despite increased military spending, and Canada hasn't gone beyond Afghanistan. What I want to know is how those people can justify expecting the military to do more with less year after year while they have a nice surplus.

The Liberals allocated three times as much to discretionary military spending as the Conservatives. Then the Conservatives went over budget.

Quote: I don't mean to sound partisan, but the Liberal track record when it comes to the military over the last decade has been pathetic, and the current government, I think, is correcting that.

Examination of the Liberal platform would show that military upgrades were part of both parties' platforms. I wouldn't oppose a Liberal government upgrading the military and I don't oppose a Conservative government doing so. I do laugh at the poor planning on their part, though.

Oh! I almost forgot! Stephen Harper supports government-sanctioned treatment of gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. That includes members of my family. That's a big, fat dealbreaker right there. Anyone who comes to my door or calls me on the phone asking for money for Harper's cause had damned well better be ready to tell me why they support state-sanctioned bigotry.

[Boondoggle]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: Boondoggle wrote: Looks like a sampling of the Harper eats babies crowd.

No. I'm part of the 'Harper's a gay-hating ndustry stooge and Yes-man to Bush' crowd.

Explain how he's a Yes-man.

He was also supposed to drive the country back into deficits, remember? Paul Martin argued in the last election that the Conservative platform didn't add up, yet a $13 billion surplus has been put down on the debt. Now, the Conservatives are criticized for putting it all towards the debt, which is what the Liberals liked to do.

Harper wants to put same sex marriage up to a vote, and I'd rather that than have a position forced on us.

Quote: Quote: Media coverage of dead soldiers is left up to the families, which is the way it should be. If they don't want cameras in their faces, they shouldn't have to deal with that. Having said that, I think there's been plenty of coverage.

Harper wanted it to be otherwise.

We can argue what his intentions were, but that's a moot point given that that's not how it is now.

Quote: Quote: The money for child care was never meant to cover everything, but rather to make it easier for people that are in a bit of a financial pinch. There is such thing as responsibility, and if you're a parent, YOU are responsible for your children not the government.

I don't care about ideology, I care about results. $100/month doesn't get results. Seems to have bought a few votes, though.

How do you figure that parents taking responsibility for their children = ideology?

The Liberals had over a decade to come up with something better. So, why didn't they? Perhaps, it was a plan to take votes away from the NDP in order to beat the Conservatives? That $100/month is either tax dollars back, or money that wasn't earned. Either way, it's better than rhetoric.

Quote: Quote: but same can be said with the US opposition to Kyoto

Indeed. But so what? We signed a treaty. For us to abandon it after signing it is disgraceful. It's shames Americans when the US does it too.

Which is more important to you, a signature saying you will do something, or results?

Quote: Quote: yet the US has a better track record on the environment.

Umm...which bit? 'The Environment' covers a lot of ground, ha ha, and not all enviromental policies concern greenhouse gas emissions.

Your comparison serves no purpose. Conservative environmental policy is what it is. It's effective or it's not. Comparing it to America's policies might be interesting, but it doesn't serve as a defence of any sort.

The US has done more to cut emissions, and that's a fact. However, since you want to talk about more than that:

Quote: A group of Washington state residents has convinced the powerful U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take on a Canadian smelting giant because there could be health risks from pollution dumped into the Columbia River.

For decades now, people living on the Columbia River in Washington state have worried about what might be beneath the river water.

"Canadian law is much different than the U.S. law," Stone says. "I don't think this would have happened in the United States, at least not as long as it happened. It's really amazing to think that this kind of pollution could happen for so many years and nothing is said about it. But it's a different country."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/environment/centuryofslag.html

I've read other reports that contrast the difference between the two countries, and yes, I do think it serves a purpose given that it doesn't stop at the border and that you're hell bent on making it sound like the US has everything wrong.

Again, the Liberals have had plenty of time to address such issues. How long have the Conservatives had?

Quote: The Liberals allocated three times as much to discretionary military spending as the Conservatives. Then the Conservatives went over budget.

Examination of the Liberal platform would show that military upgrades were part of both parties' platforms. I wouldn't oppose a Liberal government upgrading the military and I don't oppose a Conservative government doing so. I do laugh at the poor planning on their part, though.

What are you smoking?

When the Liberals came into power in 93, one of the first things they did is cancel the replacement helicopters for the Sea Kings. That move cost Canadian tax payers $500 million with nothing to show for it, and the need to replace the Sea Kings remained.

To eliminate the deficit, they cut the military budget from roughly 2% of GDP, which is where it's been since 1976, down to 1.1% of GDP. They cut the the forces down by about 20,000 people, yet expected them to do more. Canada was in Bosnia, for example, throughout the 90s despite the cuts. During this time, neither funding nor troop strength was restored despite the fact that the federal government was pulling in a surplus year after year.

The Liberal plan in the last election was to add combination of 8,000 full time and reserve troops, which wouldn't even replace half of what they cut in the 90s. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are adding a combination of 23,000 full time and reserves.

Moreover, Harper has said that he would like to eventually restore the regular budget to 2-3% of GDP.

Then, there are, of course, the subs that the Liberals bought, which have been plagued with problems. This is not the fault of the Brits, but the Liberal government that looked for the cheapest deal they could find. Why not spend a couple billion of all that surplus money to get some good subs in order to maintain an important capability - specially up north?

I've also read a report in which it was stated that the Liberals planned on spending $30-80k to fix up each of the existing military trucks, which date back to the 80s, rather than buying new ones. I ask you, why spend up to $80k fixing up a 20 year old truck rather than buying a new one? *slap forehead* The Conservatives are buying all new trucks for the military.

For the air force, the Liberals put in place plans to upgrade the F-18s, but they're paying for it partly by selling some of them off. As a result, the air force will be cut down from 120 planes to about 80. When you're the only country in the G8 pulling in a surplus year after year, why not just pay for the upgrades instead of gutting the air force?

As for tanks, if the Liberals had their way, Canada wouldn't have any at all. Instead, they'd replace them with light armor Strykers. The Stryker deal is now pretty much dead, and the Conservatives are looking into buying Leopard 2 tanks.

Critics argued against the Conservatives sending the Leopards into Afghanistan by saying that they're older tanks and won't provide enough protection. If the Leopards don't provide enough protection, how do you figure the Stryker would do? By the way, they added extra armor to the Leopards.

Finally, there's the matter of cargo planes. According to reports, the current Hercules planes are to be grounded by 2010. According to a Liberal, it'd be better to lease planes than to buy new planes for the air force. I ask you, what if you want to lease planes, and those planes are booked? It's in Canada's interest to be able to act independently by having planes for the air force in both matters of defense and in order to respond to natural disasters. The Conservatives are buying new C-17s and C130Js, which the Liberals have complained about. The first C130J may arrive as early as next summer. So, Canada should have new planes in place before the Hercules are grounded.

Oh, and there are the much needed Chinooks that the Conservatives are buying. I didn't hear anything about the Liberals planning on buying them.

The one thing that is the same between the Conservatives and Liberals is the plan to add the new ships for the navy.

Again, I don't mean to sound partisan, and there are some things I agree with the Liberals on, but having said all of the above, when it comes to the military, thank god the Conservatives are working on it.

Quote: Oh! I almost forgot! Stephen Harper supports government-sanctioned treatment of gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. That includes members of my family. That's a big, fat dealbreaker right there. Anyone who comes to my door or calls me on the phone asking for money for Harper's cause had damned well better be ready to tell me why they support state-sanctioned bigotry.

No, you didn't forget. You called them stooges above, remember?

[Refrozen Seabass]

Boondoggle wrote: Explain how he's a Yes-man.

I'm sorry, I should've said 'lickspittle'. Refusing to stand up for his country when it comes to softwood lumber or our ownership of the NW passage comes to mind, as did the coddling of Israel as it bombed the hell out of Lebanon. Not to mention his expressed desire to strengthen ties with the Bush Administration. Why should I vote for someone who wants to do that? If I had my way we'd be telling them the oil shipments would resume as soon as the softwood lumber tariffs were repaid and Mr. Arar was compensated for being kidnapped and sent off to be tortured. He who controls the spice controls the universe and we control so very much of the U.S.'s spice.

Quote: He was also supposed to drive the country back into deficits, remember?

I don't recall seeing that in the campaign platform, no.

Quote: Harper wants to put same sex marriage up to a vote

Lipstick on 2004's pig. He wanted to institutionalize bigotry then, I see no reason to think he feels differently now. If he did, he'd leave the matter be.


Quote: and I'd rather that than have a position forced on us.

Your preferences have nothing to do with anything. Harper's sanctioned bigotry is the issue here.

Quote: We can argue what his intentions were, but that's a moot point given that that's not how it is now.

Nonsense. It's a clear indicator of his attitude toward his employers.

Quote: How do you figure that parents taking responsibility for their children = ideology?

Because you didn't argue for the Harper program on its merits, explaining how it will achieve superiour results to the Martin program.

Quote: The Liberals had over a decade to come up with something better. So, why didn't they? Perhaps, it was a plan to take votes away from the NDP in order to beat the Conservatives?

If you're going to answer your own questions, don't ask them of me. And save your conspiracy theories.

Quote: That $100/month is either tax dollars back, or money that wasn't earned. Either way, it's better than rhetoric.

The Martin plan wasn't rhetoric. Nothing happened because the budget wasn't passed because the NDP played silly buggers.

Quote: Which is more important to you, a signature saying you will do something, or results?

Personal and national integrity count for something. The Harper plan does not limit ghg emissions and therefore will not produce results. It's some weak 'intensity based plan' similar to the laughable substitute Bush came up with years ago. The Made In Canada plan, indeed.

Do you expect results from an industry shill and a scientifically ignorant fundamentalist Christian? Why?

[quote] Quote: yet the US has a better track record on the environment.

Quote: The US has done more to cut emissions, and that's a fact.

An unsupported one, but one that wouldn't surprise me, if true. We can thank Alberta's Conservative government that. You see, what happened was that the Federal Liberals presented Alberta with a plan, but the provincial conservatives, thinking they represent Alberta industries and are exempt from treaties Canada signs, whined and bitched and refused to comply. It is the Klein Goverment's fault that 40% of Canada's GHG emissions and seven of the top ten emitters are in this province, not Martin's.

Quote: However, since you want to talk about more than that:

I don't. I said it might be interesting. But I'm not interested in doing the research on the matter. I'm certainly not about to take claims of America's environmental progressiveness at face value, though. You may believe what you wish.

Quote: I've read other reports that contrast the difference between the two countries, and yes, I do think it serves a purpose given that it doesn't stop at the border and that you're hell bent on making it sound like the US has everything wrong.

I thought we were talking about Canada. There are no doubt some state initiatives that make up for Bush's own Klein-like stoogery, much like the Edmonton and Calgary municipal goverments have had to do in order to make up for Klein's bowing to Syncrude and Suncor and their stockholders rather than his employers.

Quote: Again, the Liberals have had plenty of time to address such issues.

They did.

Quote: January: Several media organizations say Ottawa is about to announce a revamp of its 2002 Kyoto implementation plan.

Feb. 16: Kyoto Protocol formally goes into force. Canada still has not released details of how it will achieve its Kyoto commitments.

March 23: The federal government and Canada's car makers reach an agreement on emissions standards. Automakers agree that its new vehicles will cut emissions by 5.3 megatonnes by 2010 as part of Ottawa's Kyoto plan.

April 6: The minority Liberal government offers to pull a controversial provision dealing with the Kyoto accord from its budget bill. The opposition Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Québécois have all said they would vote against the budget because of the provision, which would make greenhouse gas emissions a controlled substance so Ottawa could regulate them. In order to appease the opposition, Liberal House leader Tony Valeri offers a deal to Conservative House leader Jay Hill that will allow the finance committee to reject the proposal.

April 13: The federal government announces details of its Kyoto implementation plan, which revamps the plan it put in place almost three years earlier. The government pledges $10 billion to cut greenhouse gases by 270 megatonnes a year by 2008-2012. The plan relaxes emission targets for large industrial polluters.

April 14: Environmentalists say parts of Ottawa's new plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be good for the Atlantic region. The Atlantic chapter of the Sierra Club of Canada says promoting the use of alternative energy sources is ideal because Atlantic Canada has a high wind potential. But they're disappointed with the targets set for large polluters. Large companies create almost half of the country's emissions, but they are only required to reduce them by about 14 per cent.

A Yukon environmental group says federal plans fall far short of what's needed. The Yukon Conservation Society says the government is only promising to consult with large firms that produce about 50 per cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, rather than force them to cut their CO2 production.

Nov. 3: Alberta files a formal objection to the federal government's plans to implement the Kyoto accord and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta has long opposed the Kyoto accord, saying it will hurt the province's lucrative oil and gas industry. Provincial Environment Minister Guy Boutilier says Alberta should be allowed to put its own legislation in place to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.html

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest mistake the Liberals made was giving too much leeway to polluters. I don't forsee the Harper government remedying that.

Quote: How long have the Conservatives had?

They're the ones who set the deadline for their own plan, which they've been talking about for at least two years, and it turned out to be a farce. No one forced the issue.

Quote: What are you smoking?

Nothing. I told you, I looked at both party platforms.

Quote: When the Liberals came into power in 93 . . .

This has nothing to do with the 2006 election platforms. It has no point.

Quote: The Liberal plan in the last election was to add combination of 8,000 full time and reserve troops, which wouldn't even replace half of what they cut in the 90s. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are adding a combination of 23,000 full time and reserves.

Oh, goodie. What are troops for but wars? I'm all for newer and better gear so our existing military has the best, but what do we need another 23000 troops for? What are we planning to do with them?

Quote: Moreover, Harper has said that he would like to eventually restore the regular budget to 2-3% of GDP.

Harper says a lot of things. No doubt the money will come out of enviromental and cultural programs.

Quote: Then, there are, of course, the subs that the Liberals bought, which have been plagued with problems. This is not the fault of the Brits, but the Liberal government that looked for the cheapest deal they could find. Why not spend a couple billion of all that surplus money to get some good subs in order to maintain an important capability - specially up north?

This also has nothing to do with the 2006 election campaign. I'll tell you again: the Liberals allocated more money then the Conservatives. Then the Conservatives went over budget.

Quote: I've also read a report in which it was stated that the Liberals planned on spending $30-80k to fix up each of the existing military trucks, which date back to the 80s, rather than buying new ones. I ask you, why spend up to $80k fixing up a 20 year old truck rather than buying a new one? *slap forehead* The Conservatives are buying all new trucks for the military.

And blowing their budget in the process.

I ditched the rest of your screed. I don't disagree with any of the plans, I just resent being undersold on the budget. They allocated $5 billion in the campaign, but the proposed budget was for three times that much. I'm not interested in such a fiscally irresponsible government.

Quote: Oh! I almost forgot! Stephen Harper supports government-sanctioned treatment of gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. That includes members of my family. That's a big, fat dealbreaker right there. Anyone who comes to my door or calls me on the phone asking for money for Harper's cause had damned well better be ready to tell me why they support state-sanctioned bigotry.

I thought it worth mentioning twice. That's my story, I'm sticking to it.

And I didn't even mention Harper's announcement to take a free-market approach to our natural resources rather than a political one. That doesn't sound very like a man concerned about the environment. If there's money to be made blowing the top off my mountains, there's no doubt in my mind he'd do it.

No, wouldn't vote for a conservative dogcatcher. Nothing any Liberal government has done could disgust me as much as what Harper has in mind for this country. The environmental issue is more important than his getting the military vote.

[[Bible]Monkey]

Interesting discussion, gentlemen. I think that it's good that the Progressive Conservatives got in Federally; we needed a change from the complacent Liberal government, but it's even better that the Progressive Conservatives got in as a Minority government.

It is good to have four disparate Parties-sword at each others neck, each checking the other- representing the collection of outposts that make up Canada. ( For those Americans that don't know what a minority government is , it means that the Party in power can't do anything too crazy, or they'll face a vote of 'no confidence', and might be replaced) .
As a minority government, Harper can make some needed ( negotiated ) improvements,-military spending, etc. but not go too far . Lester Pearson had a minority government, and he got a lot accomplished.

Anyway, I wouldn't want to see Progressive Conservative Harper as Prime Minister with a Majority government-I think then Canadians would begin to see his true colours. As a minority government, a hancuffed neocon, he brings about neccessary, but muted change.

Quote: Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy

What do close advisors to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement.

Strauss, who died in 1973, believed in the inherent inequality of humanity. Most people, he famously taught, are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us.

In Washington, Straussians exert powerful influence from within the inner circle of the White House. In Canada, they roost, for now, in the so-called Calgary School, guiding Harper in framing his election strategies.....
.
...There's one big difference between American and Canadian Straussians. The Americans assumed positions of power and influence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The Canadians have not had much opportunity to show (or is that hide?) their stuff. That may change with a Harper victory.

Paul Wolfowitz's teacher, Allan Bloom, and another Straussian, Walter Berns, taught at the University of Toronto during the 1970s. They left their teaching posts at Cornell University because they couldn't stomach the student radicalism of the '60s. At Toronto, they influenced an entire generation of political scientists, who fanned out to universities across the country.

Two of their students, Ted Morton and Rainer Knopff, went to the University of Calgary where they specialize in attacking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They claim the charter is the result of a conspiracy foisted on the Canadian people by "special interests." These nasty people are feminists, gays and lesbians, the poor, prisoners and refugee-rights groups who are advancing their own interests through the courts at the expense of the general public, these Straussians allege.

The problem with their analysis is that the special interest which makes more use of the courts to advance its interests than all these other groups combined -- business -- receives not a mention. Deception by omission is a common Straussian technique. The weak are targeted while the real culprits disappear.

Harper's mentors

Harper studied under the neocons at the University of Calgary and worked with them to craft policies for the fledgling Reform Party in the late 1980s. Together with Preston Manning, they created an oxymoron, a populist party backed by business.....

Quote: A speech given by Stephen Harper eight years ago has resurfaced just in time for the first debate of the federal election campaign, and the Liberals are likely to claim it as evidence of the Conservative leader's true character.

The Canadian Press was alerted Wednesday evening to the 1997 speech given to the Council for National Policy, an American think tank in Montreal. The entire text of the speech can be found on the group's website – although there's no longer a link to it from the list of past speakers.

Canadian Press says it was pointed to the story by an "opponent of [Harper's] social policies" who wanted to remain anonymous.

* RELATED: Quote: Full text of Harper's speech
Text of Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997
Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a big welcome to Canada. Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. But seriously, your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world...... First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.....

Given in Montreal while Harper was a private citizen – he was between stints as an MP at the time – the speech praises American conservatives and slams Canada for being a "European welfare state."

I can't imagine an American politician bad-mouthing his own country to a foriegn audience and surviving politically, but this speech ( while not all bad ) was buried. We don't want a powerful Harper government.

[[Bible]Monkey]

n2ds wrote: Refrozen Seabass wrote: On the one hand, maybe there were no plans when he made the comment.

On the other hand, the Harper government is not so on the ball, and certainly not honest with the people it claims to represent. This is but one example.

Mmk seabass. where has the harper government not been on the ball, and not been honest with teh people?

Waiting again for your reply :wink:
nandan



n2ds wrote: Refrozen Seabass never has a rebuttle to my comments. Cmon man!

nandan

Consider yourself rebutted. Although why you want a new butt, I dunno. I would just try some looser pants :-D

[[Bible]Monkey]

Boondoggle wrote: Looks like F-18s could be deployed to Afghanistan next:

Quote: OTTAWA—Just a month after the defence department denied any plans to dispatch CF-18 fighter jets to Afghanistan, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has opened the door to a possible deployment.

The Star

Good, although they're a little fast for close air support ( compared to other aircraft)

A friend of mine is in Afghanistan, Princess Patricia Light infantry . He's been there a long time-four tours now, I think. When he went, his daughter was a newborn-now she's starting Kindergarten-he hasn't seen much of her, or his wife. He was telling me last Christmas , that he thought the most beautiful sight to him was their picture, but he says now the second most beautiful sight is an American A-10 warthog-they were in combat, called in an airstrike, and "that airplane just solved all of our problems,those sons of b*****s that were trying to kill us were just gone".

Good to hear our troops will be getting more air support.

[Boondoggle]

A lot to respond to there Seabass. So, that'll come later. However, I thought this would be especially appropriate to this topic:

Canada 20/20 Debate: On October 3, 2006, Major General (ret’d) Lewis MacKenzie, John Watson, president of CARE Canada, and Toronto Star columnist Jim Travers went head-to-head as they debated Canada’s future role in peacekeeping.

MacKenzie makes two good arguments. First, that peacekeeping is the most misunderstood and abused term in the country. He calls it a myth, and points out that Canada has never had more than a couple thousand troops involved in a peacekeeping mission at a time, yet had 10,000+ in Germany under NATO to deal with a Soviet threat. Second, that soldiers aren't , as he puts it, "social workers with guns". Leave development to people that do that type of work, and call the military when you need something that involves the use of force.

Mackenzie also comments on various UN missions, and considering that he's served in 9 of them, you'd be hard pressed to find someone with more experience with the issue.

As for the amount of aid vs. military spending, Canada gives Afghanistan more aid than it does to any other country. Also, the UN is in there with various agencies. If, however, you think more should be done, keep in mind that while the Liberals cut military spending by 27% in the 90s, they also cut foreign aid and diplomacy spending by over 20% each - as Mackenzie points out.

[Boondoggle]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: I'm sorry, I should've said 'lickspittle'. Refusing to stand up for his country when it comes to softwood lumber or our ownership of the NW passage comes to mind, as did the coddling of Israel as it bombed the hell out of Lebanon. Not to mention his expressed desire to strengthen ties with the Bush Administration. Why should I vote for someone who wants to do that? If I had my way we'd be telling them the oil shipments would resume as soon as the softwood lumber tariffs were repaid and Mr. Arar was compensated for being kidnapped and sent off to be tortured. He who controls the spice controls the universe and we control so very much of the U.S.'s spice.

Need I remind you that the Conservative plan calls for billions to be spent on defence up north? Harper has stated this while in the US despite US opposition to it.

There are many obvious flaws with your idea of withholding oil, but I'll mention two. First, federal control of Albertan oil would only set the stage for problems at home, and national unity should be the top priority of a federal government. Second, the US is a major market for Canadian exports. It is in the interest of the country to expand markets for Canadian goods and services not vice versa.

Perhaps, I've been sounding a little too defensive of Conservatives. So, I'll give you John Manley's view of the softwood lumber deal:

Quote: We need to deal with our neighbor in a sensible business like manner. It follows that we should cut the Prime Minister some slack, and applaud him if he builds a strong personal relationship with the President. On this, I believe Prime Minister Harper has done well, and he's acting in the national interest. This is exemplifide by finally settling the softwood lumber dispute, which while not perfect, makes the best of a bad situation, and removes an obstacle to working constructively on many other bilateral issues of great importance.

The source is a video that can be found here

Quote: Quote: He was also supposed to drive the country back into deficits, remember?

I don't recall seeing that in the campaign platform, no.

I think you're confused. The Liberals said that the Conservative's platform did not add up, and thus suggested that it would lead to deficits. Obviously such an accusation isn't in a platform, but it is on record if you wish to look at some news archives.

Quote: Quote: Harper wants to put same sex marriage up to a vote

Lipstick on 2004's pig. He wanted to institutionalize bigotry then, I see no reason to think he feels differently now. If he did, he'd leave the matter be.

Actually, I think it's more about pleasing his base. It's hardly been a top priority of the government. However, there are other constituents out there that don't hold the same view as you.

Quote: Your preferences have nothing to do with anything. Harper's sanctioned bigotry is the issue here.

Actually, my preference is relevant here because I have just as much right to representation from the government as you do.

Quote: Quote: We can argue what his intentions were, but that's a moot point given that that's not how it is now.

Nonsense. It's a clear indicator of his attitude toward his employers.

What, that he's willing to change his position to suit constituents? That's hardly a bad thing.