Super Genius
Posts: 1,366 
Location: Within arms reach of the new baby..
Location: Within arms reach of the new baby..
June 12th, 2004, 08:08 PM
That is what scares me.
Quoting
I didn't realize that being in politics was about supporting personal views. I thought it was about proposing policies and ideas that were along your parties lines, and in sync with what the majority of Canada wanted. This is why Stephen Harper is backtracking on so many comments of his party goers. They are spouting personal views that don't coincide with what the party is proposing.
.
Paul Martin is a catholic and will not even state his personal view. IS THIS WHO WE WANT IN POWER? Somebody who will not even tell there position??
Paul Martin is a catholic and will not even state his personal view. IS THIS WHO WE WANT IN POWER? Somebody who will not even tell there position??
That is what scares me.
June 13th, 2004, 07:08 PM
Actually, I recently did a news report / commentary which has something to do with this topic. The differences between Paul Martin and Stephen Harper are somewhat touched on in the article.
Here is it: http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_682.html
Actually, I recently did a news report / commentary which has something to do with this topic. The differences between Paul Martin and Stephen Harper are somewhat touched on in the article.
Here is it: http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_682.html
Council Member
Posts: 2,275 
June 14th, 2004, 07:37 AM
The claim was made that Paul Martin wants to be Prime Minister to help his corporate buddies; that's wrong. Paul Martin wants to be Prime Minister because his FATHER always wanted to be Prime Minister, but was beaten out by that Trudeau guy....
Interestingly enough, the Montreal powerful (Power Corp) business elite, who are all Martin's friends, seem to be fairly quiet - seems they don't want to be too vocal in their support, because they see a minority gov't coming, and don't want to be on the wrong side.....
The claim was made that Paul Martin wants to be Prime Minister to help his corporate buddies; that's wrong. Paul Martin wants to be Prime Minister because his FATHER always wanted to be Prime Minister, but was beaten out by that Trudeau guy....
Interestingly enough, the Montreal powerful (Power Corp) business elite, who are all Martin's friends, seem to be fairly quiet - seems they don't want to be too vocal in their support, because they see a minority gov't coming, and don't want to be on the wrong side.....
Newbie
Posts: 18
Location: Surrey BC
Location: Surrey BC
June 14th, 2004, 09:01 AM
Lets see, I have meet harper, Layton, Orchard, Fogal, Manning, Clinton, Ziang Zemin(sp?) and a few other notable leaders.
Manning like Layton is down to earth and approachable.
Harper was warm but something seemed not quite right.
Clinton was by and far the best and most open. He is a great speaker and makes one feel welcome.
Fogal is a great lady and you can tell where her heart is.
Layton I have meet the most -three times if I remember right.
But when it comes to differences between Martin and Harper they are many.
Harper is a smart man. Very intellectual by all acounts. Though, like his party he is hiding something. I have worked in enough jails to know when someone is hiding something from me and those around.
Martin, never looked him directly in the eye, but from his track record we can see where he really stands. He is pro-business and pro-elite, but then again so is Harper - he just hides it better.
Harper is best exemplified by his own words. He is anti-government and pro-everything American style - as are his closest supporters like Mulroney.
http://www.canadiandemocraticmovemen...rticle&sid=378
The best way to judge a person is by their past and present plans.
Harper is looking to tear down everything Canadians have built since WW2. He is borderline anti-social if one is to break him down. He has real contempt for the collective future of Canada and really thinks 'free markets' apply to everything in life. He is open about hating anything to do with social spending on the most vulnerable - again an American Republican trait.
Martin, is much the same only he does seem to know that by doing it slower many will not catch on as quick.
Make no mistake there is little difference between the two when it comes to final policies and outcomes.
Lets see, I have meet harper, Layton, Orchard, Fogal, Manning, Clinton, Ziang Zemin(sp?) and a few other notable leaders.
Manning like Layton is down to earth and approachable.
Harper was warm but something seemed not quite right.
Clinton was by and far the best and most open. He is a great speaker and makes one feel welcome.
Fogal is a great lady and you can tell where her heart is.
Layton I have meet the most -three times if I remember right.
But when it comes to differences between Martin and Harper they are many.
Harper is a smart man. Very intellectual by all acounts. Though, like his party he is hiding something. I have worked in enough jails to know when someone is hiding something from me and those around.
Martin, never looked him directly in the eye, but from his track record we can see where he really stands. He is pro-business and pro-elite, but then again so is Harper - he just hides it better.
Harper is best exemplified by his own words. He is anti-government and pro-everything American style - as are his closest supporters like Mulroney.
http://www.canadiandemocraticmovemen...rticle&sid=378
The best way to judge a person is by their past and present plans.
Harper is looking to tear down everything Canadians have built since WW2. He is borderline anti-social if one is to break him down. He has real contempt for the collective future of Canada and really thinks 'free markets' apply to everything in life. He is open about hating anything to do with social spending on the most vulnerable - again an American Republican trait.
Martin, is much the same only he does seem to know that by doing it slower many will not catch on as quick.
Make no mistake there is little difference between the two when it comes to final policies and outcomes.
Newbie
Posts: 2
June 14th, 2004, 12:20 PM
I will tell you what I know about Stephen Harper:
1)He will dismantle the CRTC (as you know the regulator of cable/etc. in Canada), and open up the market to US satellite operators, and, by so doing, make our culture even more american than it already is. This is in the conservative policy book;
2)He will decimate Canadian culture by opening it up to the "free market," and we all know how well the "free market," works;
3)He will ensure that Judges don't make law. To me, that means that parliament can over-ride minority rights-and brings us closer to being a US state;
4)He will be way too pro-american. During the Iraq debate, this was the guy who put an ad in the Washington Post APOLOGIZING for our Governments policy re Iraq. Well uh excuse me, but who is Harper pandering to? the American electorate;
5)He will ixnay the Kyoto Protocol. He says he will institute new pollution laws, etc., but then he doesn't go into any detail;
6)He will address the alleged "fiscal imbalance," by giving away Federal taxing powers to the provinces, leaving the Federal government as a eunuch. Our country is already decentralized enough, and this guy wants to decentralize it more.
I fear this guy-I fear what this country will be like in four years. He has kept quiet about his policies, instead focussing on the liberal record, which in my opinion is a little spotty.
I, however, am voting liberal because I really am scared about this guy. I love my country and don't want to become another american state. At this point, yes, I know the liberals should be punished, but does this mean we give the reins of power to someone who would make this country into a US state?
I will tell you what I know about Stephen Harper:
1)He will dismantle the CRTC (as you know the regulator of cable/etc. in Canada), and open up the market to US satellite operators, and, by so doing, make our culture even more american than it already is. This is in the conservative policy book;
2)He will decimate Canadian culture by opening it up to the "free market," and we all know how well the "free market," works;
3)He will ensure that Judges don't make law. To me, that means that parliament can over-ride minority rights-and brings us closer to being a US state;
4)He will be way too pro-american. During the Iraq debate, this was the guy who put an ad in the Washington Post APOLOGIZING for our Governments policy re Iraq. Well uh excuse me, but who is Harper pandering to? the American electorate;
5)He will ixnay the Kyoto Protocol. He says he will institute new pollution laws, etc., but then he doesn't go into any detail;
6)He will address the alleged "fiscal imbalance," by giving away Federal taxing powers to the provinces, leaving the Federal government as a eunuch. Our country is already decentralized enough, and this guy wants to decentralize it more.
I fear this guy-I fear what this country will be like in four years. He has kept quiet about his policies, instead focussing on the liberal record, which in my opinion is a little spotty.
I, however, am voting liberal because I really am scared about this guy. I love my country and don't want to become another american state. At this point, yes, I know the liberals should be punished, but does this mean we give the reins of power to someone who would make this country into a US state?
Newbie
Posts: 2
June 14th, 2004, 12:25 PM
T Rex, you said,
"Paul Martin has policy that is so liberal you can be sick because he supports gay marriage, legalized pot, and other dangerous things. "
What is so dangerous about legalized pot? Do you want to also bring back prohibition?
Most Canadians support the legalization of pot. What are the other "dangerous" things that Paul Martin supports?
As for "gay marriage," the courts have decided that not allowing this violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We have a Charter because it protects minorities from being "abused" by the majority. No matter how much I disagree with "gay marriage," well I DO NOT want to have a situation where MY beliefs override the beliefs of someone else so much that it violates their RIGHTS.
T Rex, you said,
"Paul Martin has policy that is so liberal you can be sick because he supports gay marriage, legalized pot, and other dangerous things. "
What is so dangerous about legalized pot? Do you want to also bring back prohibition?
Most Canadians support the legalization of pot. What are the other "dangerous" things that Paul Martin supports?
As for "gay marriage," the courts have decided that not allowing this violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We have a Charter because it protects minorities from being "abused" by the majority. No matter how much I disagree with "gay marriage," well I DO NOT want to have a situation where MY beliefs override the beliefs of someone else so much that it violates their RIGHTS.
Newbie
Posts: 2
June 20th, 2004, 03:30 PM
If Harper had been PM during the invasion of Iraq we would have ended up joining with our US counterpart. The disaster of such a decision is evident now that we are at this stage in the war. All the justifications for it have been proven false, and the cost has been tremendous. Even to the rest of the world and now we have higher energy costs due to pipeline disruptions. Yet there have been no WMD, no eminent threat, no ties to establishing a relationship with Al Qaeda, etc.
To me this shows what poor a leader Harper would make because the decision join the US in the Iraq war would have affected Canada across the board. We would be facing threats directed to us by terrorist groups, we would have lost the respect of the world community, we would be incurring the costs of Canadian lives for a misguided war, we would have association with the atrocities being committed in Iraq by the US simply via our involvement, and the potential of undermining our economy as we get locked into the cost of such a war with security concerns and a drop in optimism would have been another tragedy.
As far as I've seen, Harper hasn't stated a regret of having pushed Canada towards joining the US in the Iraq war. In fact he apologized to the US on behalf of Canada’s noninvolvement in a written letter.
Now there is the concern that if the US engages in other preemptive wars, will Harper put Canada into it? All in all, the Iraq war would have been a huge leadership failure and right now we can only be thankful that we are not participating in it.
I am not happy with the sponsorship scandal and I think the Liberals deserve to eat some humble pie for it. I am however content with how Canada has done both economically and socially and don't see why I would wish to throw the country toward different direction that a politically ‘right’ government would implement.
The last thing Canada needs to do is emulate the American political landscape. The US is now disliked the world over. Harper would take us one step closer in that direction. If I had to not vote Liberal I would even go NDP even given that I do not see them as a strong party for Canada’s economic landscape or foreign affairs.
However it is better to have a peaceful country that still is minded in moderate views which are typically Canadian and to continue being respected by the world, than to start playing with right wing politics.
If Harper had been PM during the invasion of Iraq we would have ended up joining with our US counterpart. The disaster of such a decision is evident now that we are at this stage in the war. All the justifications for it have been proven false, and the cost has been tremendous. Even to the rest of the world and now we have higher energy costs due to pipeline disruptions. Yet there have been no WMD, no eminent threat, no ties to establishing a relationship with Al Qaeda, etc.
To me this shows what poor a leader Harper would make because the decision join the US in the Iraq war would have affected Canada across the board. We would be facing threats directed to us by terrorist groups, we would have lost the respect of the world community, we would be incurring the costs of Canadian lives for a misguided war, we would have association with the atrocities being committed in Iraq by the US simply via our involvement, and the potential of undermining our economy as we get locked into the cost of such a war with security concerns and a drop in optimism would have been another tragedy.
As far as I've seen, Harper hasn't stated a regret of having pushed Canada towards joining the US in the Iraq war. In fact he apologized to the US on behalf of Canada’s noninvolvement in a written letter.
Now there is the concern that if the US engages in other preemptive wars, will Harper put Canada into it? All in all, the Iraq war would have been a huge leadership failure and right now we can only be thankful that we are not participating in it.
I am not happy with the sponsorship scandal and I think the Liberals deserve to eat some humble pie for it. I am however content with how Canada has done both economically and socially and don't see why I would wish to throw the country toward different direction that a politically ‘right’ government would implement.
The last thing Canada needs to do is emulate the American political landscape. The US is now disliked the world over. Harper would take us one step closer in that direction. If I had to not vote Liberal I would even go NDP even given that I do not see them as a strong party for Canada’s economic landscape or foreign affairs.
However it is better to have a peaceful country that still is minded in moderate views which are typically Canadian and to continue being respected by the world, than to start playing with right wing politics.
Newbie
Posts: 2
June 20th, 2004, 03:45 PM
If Harper dismantles the CRTC and begins to allow more US ownership of Canadian media than we will get a media bias like in the US.
A huge percentage of Americans believed the Iraq war was justified on pretenses which they were unaware were false. I don’t know what the statistics are now, but the majority of Americans even believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 911 terrorism.
Such a flawed public opinion can only be attributed to how poor and how manipulated the US media is and continues to show itself to be. Some of the media ownership in the US can be linked to General Electric that makes components for missiles.
You can imagine the conflict in reporting issues related to war when a media ownership has a role in profiting from it.
(Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune)
Media and government
PRINCETON, New Jersey A funny thing happened during the Iraq war:
Many Americans turned to the BBC for their television news. They were looking for an alternative point of view - something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director-general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."
If Harper dismantles the CRTC and begins to allow more US ownership of Canadian media than we will get a media bias like in the US.
A huge percentage of Americans believed the Iraq war was justified on pretenses which they were unaware were false. I don’t know what the statistics are now, but the majority of Americans even believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 911 terrorism.
Such a flawed public opinion can only be attributed to how poor and how manipulated the US media is and continues to show itself to be. Some of the media ownership in the US can be linked to General Electric that makes components for missiles.
You can imagine the conflict in reporting issues related to war when a media ownership has a role in profiting from it.
(Wednesday, May 14, 2003 Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune)
Media and government
PRINCETON, New Jersey A funny thing happened during the Iraq war:
Many Americans turned to the BBC for their television news. They were looking for an alternative point of view - something they couldn't find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC's director-general, "wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality."
Super Genius
Posts: 1,172
June 20th, 2004, 08:20 PM
An Harper minority government will last as long as the Clark minority government did in 1980? Then you get Martin, with a majority. Ontario rules, and just as well. Democracy has been served. Shakin' hands with the Devil, it's not as bad as it looks.
An Harper minority government will last as long as the Clark minority government did in 1980? Then you get Martin, with a majority. Ontario rules, and just as well. Democracy has been served. Shakin' hands with the Devil, it's not as bad as it looks.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,065
Location: Montréal, Québec
Location: Montréal, Québec
June 20th, 2004, 09:58 PM
Most likely, depends to what extreme he takes his views. If he is moderate, then no. But if he goes beyond the limit, then expect him to be voted out by parlement. Also, it isnt exactly a Harper goverment, more of a Conservative goverment. Our system is quite different then the American system, we don't elect a man, but a party. Why are we bashing Harper? Because he represents the views of his party, views that arnt acceptable to many Citizens in Canada.
As for how much any minority goverment will last, the balance of power will be held by the Bloc. So québécois, should expect good things from any federal goverment that will be elected the 28th, if it is indeed a Minority goverment. The bloc will most likely get 55-60 seats, The Conservatives and the Liberals between 100-120 each and the NDP with 20-30.
Most likely, depends to what extreme he takes his views. If he is moderate, then no. But if he goes beyond the limit, then expect him to be voted out by parlement. Also, it isnt exactly a Harper goverment, more of a Conservative goverment. Our system is quite different then the American system, we don't elect a man, but a party. Why are we bashing Harper? Because he represents the views of his party, views that arnt acceptable to many Citizens in Canada.
As for how much any minority goverment will last, the balance of power will be held by the Bloc. So québécois, should expect good things from any federal goverment that will be elected the 28th, if it is indeed a Minority goverment. The bloc will most likely get 55-60 seats, The Conservatives and the Liberals between 100-120 each and the NDP with 20-30.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,172
June 20th, 2004, 11:11 PM
Honestly, Numure, is the Canadian federal government dominated by a coalition of Ontario and Quebec? To what extent is this an historical inheritance from the days of the Hudson's Bay Company? Now, that precedes both Hydro Quebec, as well as the oil interest in Edmonton. It even precedes the Trans-Canada railway. Help me to see it.
Honestly, Numure, is the Canadian federal government dominated by a coalition of Ontario and Quebec? To what extent is this an historical inheritance from the days of the Hudson's Bay Company? Now, that precedes both Hydro Quebec, as well as the oil interest in Edmonton. It even precedes the Trans-Canada railway. Help me to see it.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,065
Location: Montréal, Québec
Location: Montréal, Québec
June 20th, 2004, 11:13 PM
It is dominated by Ontario and Québec, because most of the population is concentrated here. Though, the West (put together), has more seats then Québec, we still take a bigger role, because we have our own regional party.
Historicly, Québec was the first "Canadian" colony that had any value. Ontario, was at the time, part of Québec. Though seperated after the American Rebellion, because of the Loyalist that settled there. In does times, the british and Ontario(Upper Canada) controled pretty muche everything. Even Québec (Lower Canada) to an extent. We, as Québécois, only had some control over our own province when we wernt a colony anymore... We started to take a bigger place in the 1960's, with la Révolution tranquille. And ever since, we have been the political center of Canada (Mostly because of our "whinning").
It is dominated by Ontario and Québec, because most of the population is concentrated here. Though, the West (put together), has more seats then Québec, we still take a bigger role, because we have our own regional party.
Historicly, Québec was the first "Canadian" colony that had any value. Ontario, was at the time, part of Québec. Though seperated after the American Rebellion, because of the Loyalist that settled there. In does times, the british and Ontario(Upper Canada) controled pretty muche everything. Even Québec (Lower Canada) to an extent. We, as Québécois, only had some control over our own province when we wernt a colony anymore... We started to take a bigger place in the 1960's, with la Révolution tranquille. And ever since, we have been the political center of Canada (Mostly because of our "whinning").
