Stephen Harper as PM

Does anybody in this forum agree that Stephen Harper will make a much better PM than Paul Martin?

Is it fair to say he will make some much needed changes in Canada?

What do you think of his current platform?

Is there something you want to see thrown out or added to his platform and his partys platform?





I think he will make Canada proud.

I think Harper would be the downfall of the Canada we love and cherish. He will finish what Mulroney started, giving Canada away to the Americans. He will make the rest of the world hate us as they now hate the Americans. He will take away many of our social programs for the sake of lower taxes, even though we need the programs and the taxes are quite bearable. He will be Canada's Tony Blair, nothing but a Bush toady.

In the final analysis, and in my view, Harper isn't Canadian in his thinking, for Canadians still have a strong sense of caring, of humanity, and this is reflected in our strongly socialist governmental policies. I'd not change that for the world.

I firmly believe that there is only one true candidate in this election and that is Paul Martin. I am a Paul Martin fan, but in all honesty I think it's tragic that there is only one good candidate. Why don't people realize that the current Conservative Party is nothing but a fragmented version of the Alliance/Reform party. There is little or nothing left of the former Progressive Conservative feel and yet, they are obviously trying to ride that into some votes as well. I was never much of a fan of the former P.C.s, but they were light years ahead of any opposition the Liberals are confronted with today. June 28th will be a sad day in our history if the Conservatives win the election. I am quite embarassed by the choices in Canada these days. If it were not for the Martin Liberals, I would be afraid of the future.

Paul Martin is not a viable option.. Not in my books.

Paul Martin and Stephen Harper are both pretty much in the same boat. I've said before, but I will repeat: They are both in it for personal and corporate gain, that's where it ends. Neither care about Canadians and their future.

(by the way, welcome to Canadian Content NSSM)

Stephen Harper is an excellent choice for those who value americanization over canadian identity, for those who no longer wish to be welcomed into other countries when travelling, for those who long to wear the stars and stripes with pride, for those who are taking backwards steps in tolerance and acceptance, for those who support tax cuts for big business, for those who see the $2 billion invested in the Canadian military as necessary and more important than health care, and for those who are anxious to join in slaughtering and humiliating the people of Iraq.

Stephen Harper will erase what makes Canadians separate from the Americans and will redraw a country that only George W Bush could be proud of.

If you value all the above, then by all means, vote for Stephen Harper, for he is your man.

I probably could not have expressed myself as well as you just did, Diamond Sun. I totally agree.

Thank you, for the warm welcome, Andem. I'm curious, if you feel that Martin and Harper are equally bad, what do you think the alternative is? I don't think the NDP has the right vision to lead, although they would certainly change the social policy of the country. What are your thoughts?

NSSM: You can always vote the smaller independant parties. Here are some:

Canadian Action Party
The Green Party
Communist Party (that's _NOT_ an endorsement)
Marxist-Lenin Party (same as above)
Marijuana Party
Progressive Canadian Party
Your local Independant


Each vote goes to support the party that you are voting for, even if they don't get in. It would be especially helpful if Canada were to turn to proportional representation.

A vote for the NDP would give them more say and help offset the power handed to Martin or Harper. And I don't endorse the NDP either.

let's go communist this time ladies and gentlemen. I am voting for communist party for the first time in my life. I always voted for these big parties and nothing good came from them. So I am not wasting my vote on them again even if I know in my heart that the communist party will never win. In addition, they can give the finger to the American administration for me.

A few of my friends are actually running for the communist party in Montreal...

I see the NDP as a perfectly viable option to lead the country, NSSM. They've shown quite clearly here and in Saskatchewan that they can manage an economy. They have done that in spite of some pretty hard times including droughts, floods, BSE, ridiculous transfer payment systems (for every dollar Saskatchewan gets in oil money it must send $1.08 to Ottawa) and the almost-total non-cooperation of the business communty.

The biggest problem with Harper is that he's following the same formula that is failing in the US. He doesn't just want to Americanise us, he only wants to give us the worst parts of the US.

Look at the things he's said, look at his platform. These are the same basic policies that have driven the US deeply into debt, gotten them involved in an illegal war, and made them almost universally disliked around the world. If Harper gets a majority government, that will be what Canada looks like.

Martin is no bargain either. He's all for missile defense. He hired Lockheed-Martin, an American company, to work on the Canadian census. The Liberals have put through a couple of rights-raping "security" bills. They've introduced the gun registry...gun control that doesn't work and costs a lot of money.

If you don't like the NDP, then by all means vote for any of the alternative parties. Don't vote for the Liberals or Conservatives though...a vote for Martin or Harper is a vote to bring George Bush's Amerika to your house.

Please pardon me if this sounds impertinent, but is Harper a puppet of the expatriate Hong Kong financiers who siezed control of British Columbia?

Paul Martin is, of course, a member of the corporate elite; however he does still have those core values: medicare is important, for example. (Remember it was his father who was instrumental in making Tommy Douglas' medicare program a National reality. And you remember who Tommy Douglas was? That's right, Keifer Sutherland's grandfather) He is pretty much a typical Liberal.

Harper, on the other hand, is an extremely right wing guy. He wants fixed election dates (why? because the US has them). He somehow believes the solution to everything is lower taxes (why? because the US does). He says on the one hand that any government programs for regional development are dangerous, and on the other runs around in the election campaign promising money to everyone. His theory is typical of what comes out of Alberta: now that Alberta has "made it", everyone there thinks that it's somehow due to their own individual effort, and that nothing the government did or provided (railways? immigration? farm subsidies?) allowed them to grow, so therefore government is useless and should not do anything for anyone.

Harper has that little smile, reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld's "smug bastard" look. They're both hiding something. You figure out what it is. I don't trust him as far as I can spit.

Nothing so exotic, American Voice. Harper is an ideologue who believes in a combination of unfettered capitalism and the imposition of strict, far-right Christianity as a way to govern a country.

His main motivations are personal greed, the greed of his corporate buddies when it comes to financial matters. His sure knowledge that his own sweet, white Jesus who surely had blonde hair and blue eyes and never was a Jew controls his thoughts on social issues.

Where the two meet and/or conflict, his greed takes over.

He is actually very much like George Bush.

For everything you want to know of Harper look at:

Campbell
Klein
Harris/Eves
Thatcher
Bush Jr

He exemplifies each of those people to some degree, but most of all think - Mulroney.

Right-wing voodoo economics and tax cuts uber alles. Screw the poor - its your fault for being born poor. Screw the international community - Harpers wearing the kneepads for America and he plans on using them till they're worn out. Screw Canada's proud socialist history - he has right-wing dogma in mind for all of us.

Pray we get a minority government, that way it will fall in due time, the Conservatives will go the way fo the last Conservative government - down to 2 seats and we can then get back on track to making Canada THE PREMIER middle power once again.

Vote ABLOC - anybody but Liberal or Conservative!

I seem to vaguely remember a man by the name of Joe Clark, leader of something called the Prairie Rebellion sometime in the 70's. He was Prime Minister in Ottawa for about ten minutes, before they sent him packing back to--was it Edmonton. Something about a secession by western provinces, hogging the oil industry revenues, and withholding taxes from the dominant party in Ontario. Someone fill me in. Does Harper represent a revival of that movement, from the 70's?

Yes! Thank you. It has been driving me mad, trying to think where I had seen that smarmy little smirk. You're right, it was right there on Rumsfeld's face all along.

The photo of Harper on the cover of June 14ths Time magazine is downright creepy. If that picture was a word and I saw it in our Word Association thread, I'd've said, 'Hitler'. And yes, of course that is a kneejerk reaction, but it was the first word that came to mind when I saw the photo.

If you live in British Columbia and are amongst the three people in the whole province who like what Gordon Campbell has done, you should vote for Stephen Harper, for they are two peas out of the same pod.

The only reason Canada is so loved by other cultures and nations, is because they are better to immigrants than their citizens.
The main goal of a country should be THEIR citizens first, then immigrants.

There is a progam that brings in about 7% of all annual immigrants to Canada that are in unhumain situations. Sure that sounds great, but do you really know how many people die on the street or die from lack of health care due to Paul Martin and his Liberal bandits stealing $250,000,000,000 from Canadian Tax payers, it really gets you thinking.

These people are given full access to everything a Citizen is, including Welfare, which all of them go on for a very very long time.
A lot of money comes out of Canadian pockets to aid the mistakes of other countries.

I may sound horrible, but if you do the math, is it really worth it?

When should that be above saving OUR starving people!?!

I'd change it in a second.

So, your judging someone by their appearance...
Interesting.

I cannot believe you said that...
Please try to base your argument on facts, and realistic opinions rather than some ridiculas impulse.
It just makes the other person not want to waste their time debating with a child.

Proof:

Hmm, let me guess - zero?

As to your remarks regarding 'citizens' vs 'immigrants', what are you suggesting? Are you saying that immigrants should be denied the same rights as citizens?

Immigrants bring great wealth to Canada, often in terms of dollars and always in terms of diverse cultures and skills. We have so much in Canada, how can you possibly begrudge the little governmental help given to immigrants?

Completely untrue and pretty much ridiculous. Canada has built a reputation as a free and democratic nation because of its commitments to multilateral institutions.

I was just about to say that you Koga Ringo.

--

Well Canada and the United States share a trade partnership that's worth about 2 billion dollars a day that helps pay for the social programs, health care, etc. Having a leader that thumbs his nose at them rather than trying to make the best of a difficult situation isn't in the best interest of Canada either. Granted Martin hasn't done this yet, but the previous Liberal government did. Further, this is one of the areas that Martin and Harper have common ground because Martin has said that improving relations with the US is a top priority for him too.

No offense, but I think you're overreacting a little.

Care to elaborate on that?

That's half true. The conservatives want to redirect industrial subsidies toward lower taxes and increased research and development.

eh? Where do you get $2 billion? Both the Conservatives and Liberals plan on spending $7 billion on the military. Further, while some criticize Harper for the two aircraft carriers that are included in his military plan, it's important to note that they're small carriers that hold about a dozen helicopters each, and Martin's plans include three ships that hold helicopters, trucks, etc, which you can read about here: --

Harper said we should support our allies and our troops. The Liberals already had Canadian troops in Iraq as part of an exchange program while stating that they are against the war. If they are against the war, a decision I agree with, they should have relocated the troops to a place like Afghanistan where they can still work with the Americans as part of an exchange program, but in an operation that their government supports. Included in the exchange program is Brigadier-General Walt Natynczyk who is suppose to be 2nd in command of 130,000 troops. In addition to this, there are Canadian warships in the area.

If you can provide a source where Harper has said Canada should have sent more troops to Iraq, by all means do, but all I heard was support, and let's be realistic, it's not like Canada has a lot of troops to send.

Some people like to compare Harper to Mulroney, and say that the Conservatives will lead us into war while the Liberals will keep us out of wars. Let's look at the record:

Mulroney insisted on a UN resolution for the first Iraq war, and while people say he was too close to Ronald Reagan, he said no to Reagan on SDI [the Strategic Defence Initiative missile plan], Nicaragua, Cuba and South Africa.

While Mulroney and Reagan were good friends, Clinton and Chretien were too. The Liberals got Canada involved in Kosovo under NATO not the UN, and according to international law, the UN charter, chapter 7, there are two conditions under which a country can go to war: with a UN resolution, or in self defence. Further, a good chunk of the Canadian navy has been enforcing the sanctions on Iraq over the last decade that the Liberals have been in charge, which killed more people than both wars combined. As the world has seen when America went in the 2nd time, the sanctions did little to hurt Saddam.

Another area that Harper and Martin have common ground, which is related to the military issue, is the Missile Defence Program. Both have said they'll consider it.

For those that are convinced that Harper has a dangerous hidden agenda, consider this: Regardless of who wins, it'll most likely be a minority government. If Harper wants to get anything done, and survive, he'll have to work with others. If he does a bad job, as some say he will, I'm sure the Liberals will still be strong enough to give people another option.

It's often suggested that Harper will cut social programs. The Liberals can take credit for turning a $42 billion annual deficit into a multi-billion surplus, but how did they do that? By cutting back on social programs, health care, and the military. The idea is not to have a surplus with underfunded programs, or overspending, but rather a balance. Both the Conservatives and Liberals have said they'll spend more money on things like health care and the military now that there is a surplus.

I'm not a supporter of either party, and I'm not trying to paint a picture of Conservatives having it all right, and the Liberals having it all wrong, just balancing things a little.

Welcome boondoggle! Thanks for your comments!

I don't disagree that the US is a huge trade partner, but that doesn't mean that we need to adopt their privatized health care and decreased social programs. I don't think any of the leaders are suggesting we stop consorting with the Americans, and neither am I.

I don't think so. If we become more entangled with the Americans, then foreign countries will no longer distinguish between us. I've seen Americans buy Canadian Flags in order to look Canadian, because it is a proven fact that we are treated better in foreign countries.

I'm primarily responding to Harpers stance on gay marriage. Or rather, his non stance.

]

Mistakes. Sorry. I think it was a typo.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...on2004&no_ads=

Harper has switched his story to say what he thinks Canadians want to hear.

Mulroney is a "silent" advisor to Harper for this election, as reported on Global news, so I think it's completely accurate to compare him to Mulroney.

I appreciate the comments. Obviously every party has its negative points and it's positive points, we as Canadians have to choose which points are most valuable to us and vote for the party that exemplifies those points. In my case, that's neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals.

Nobody can disagree with that!

“Reagan and Mulroney start to look good when you think about Bush and Harper.” Here are some interesting websites if anyone is interested, some of it is pretty amusing.

--
--
--

Quote:
The photo of Harper on the cover of June 14ths Time magazine is downright creepy. If that picture was a word and I saw it in our Word Association thread, I'd've said, 'Hitler'.


I cannot believe you said that...
Please try to base your argument on facts, and realistic opinions rather than some ridiculas impulse.
It just makes the other person not want to waste their time debating with a child.

Perhaps the hitler association was a little extreme. But you are discounting a basic human instinct, your gut feeling. I only speak for myself, and my own life experiences, but I have found that gut feeling has been right more often than not. Its a primeval thing left over from the days when humans needed it to survive.

I think we have all come across individuals that for no valid reason alarm bells go off in our head, because we no longer have to cross the plains looking for dinner, we ignore the gut feeling because it seems to be based on no facts. In short I am just saying the gut feeling and its psychological implications should not be ignored.

Here is an interesting test if anyone is interested

--

Great link, thanks! Those quizzes are fun to take.

I think gut reactions are, because they are an honest reaction, often extreme.

After reading your post, I took another look at pictures of Harper. I still get the same feeling, a feeling of revulsion. I have rarely felt this way just from looking at a picture. The association with Hitler still stands.

This association of Harper with Hitler is not right or wrong or extreme or otherwise, it is simply how I feel when I look at pictures of Harper.

Again, thanks for the cool site, peapod! Speaking of peas, I think I managed to consume enough peas over the weekend to fuel my body for many months.

And I crave more.

[quote="Reverend Blair"]
The biggest problem with Harper is that he's following the same formula that is failing in the US.
These are the same basic policies that have driven the US deeply into debt" [endquote]

I would to try to explain WHY these conservative governments WANT nations to be in huge debt.
In the 1980's, when the majority of all Canada's debt accumulated, what was going on?

interest rates were high in 1980s, and Canada had to service its debt by borrowing.
The indications are that interest rates are about to go up dramatically again, in about two years, after the shine comes off the military-spending-induced-economic recovery we are seeing now.
That will precipitate a new round of govt borrowing. But with this much debt already, they may default. That will allow allsorts of Fascism, and likely another of those "GreatDepressions" that they served up in the 1930's.

Okay, so why do they like this?
- they have friends in high places who could merely ASK most national leaders to start borrowing again. Who gets the interest on that borrowing? - those friends in high places.
They are in the highest of places, financially. These are the people who have so much money that banks will borrow from THEM, as do Governments. They run/own the World Bank and those type of financial instuitions. They are likely people such as the Rockerfellers and Russian Billionaires and Arab royalty and European olgarchy.
They are the "5% , the ones who have the 80% or 90% of the world's money although they are only 5% of the population.

We have to know that the world's richest are not going to leave things to just work out, no, they arrange things to work out in a way thats best for them. Sometimes that is consumer spending, sometimes it the Great Depression ; sometimes they want to live off of the interest of huge loans, which may not seem like much income compared to business profits, but when things are shakey and uncertain, they are just glad not to be losing money.

I believe they have this "world economy - financial control - currency manipulation" down to a tee.
Its on a level that the general public will not ever be directly involved with, other than being a consumer spending credit, or an employee expense to the elites.
But we are affected. One main thing is that the governments are heavily discouraged from letting money get into the hands of the poor. Maybe the middle class is okay, but not the poor.
Things like welfare and health care for the poor are discouraged by the elites, because it eats into the government money THEY get{from the Sponsership programme, Weapons making,etc].

People like G.W. Bushbaby can only aspire to join the upper levels of this group. He is winning points for sure by securing Iraq's OIL.
These groups have inner and outer circles, which together form the New World Order. You could be part of the NWO just by doing certain jobs. Its all very subtle, quite often even the people at the higher levels don't know that they are taking part.


And PAYING INTEREST is one way to take part and support the NWO, so we should try to avoid that.
I would also add that BUYING NEW CARS really serves them too.
So does spreading hate; dividing people [religions works so well for this];creating in-equalities; and creating illness. okay, this was about interest payments, si I'll spare you the rest of the conspiracy.

Now thats a Conspiracy eh?

Cuddy Tookishu,
AKA?