Conservative minority or majority.

[Mowich]

A minority might be better, even with Harper's political skills I'm still a little leary of his "social skills" :smile:

Mr. Harper does not seem to have any problem what-so-ever with his 'social skills' when it comes to meetings with world political and business leaders. He is well respected by the leaders of other countries and the fact that he has expanded our markets by signing trade agreements with other countries, shows that he must have some couth. And those are all the 'social skills' he needs in my books. :smile:

I would never vote liberal, i'm not going to be part of that bunch of crooks running
our country again, we got rid of them, and they should stay 'rid of'.

I will vote for harper, and don't care about his social skills, he is a decent person,
who represents us well around the world, speaks clearly, and looks normal. lol

I am a NDP voter all my life, until recently, just keep the liberals out.
I hope harper gets a 'small' majority.

Good on you, tallola. I never try to force my opinions, political or otherwise, on other people but I sure do commend them when they are willing to stand up and be counted. Mr Harper is a very decent person. He has a wonderful, loving perfectly normal family. He loves playing music with his kids and is a huge hockey fan - he is writing a book about hockey, I hear. He is the first PM in my lifetime who I truly believe loves this country with a passion. He was unafraid to show that passion during the Olympics and he was an inspiration to many Canadians during that time. He has his problems and his faults - he is human.

 

[JLM]

What about Harper is decent?

He's shown nothing but contempt for us through repeatedly attacking our Parliamentary system, overseas he unquestioningly supports governments like in Columbia that have been directly implicated in murdering thousands of their own citizens. On the climate change front despite the overwhelming evidence presented by objective science he refuses to acknowledge what is almost certainly the biggest challenge our nation and the world has ever faced all to protect an industry he has very close personal ties to and on and on.

Canadas usually high approval in other countries has slipped seriously under his control of the nation.

Steven Harper is possibly one of the most immoral PMs we've ever had.

That might be a bit of a stretch after Trudeau and Mulroney! What about ANY politician is decent? You can't compare politicians until you remove the common denominator! :smile:

 

[TenPenny]

What did Trudeau do that was immoral?

 

[JLM]

Mr. Harper does not seem to have any problem what-so-ever with his 'social skills' when it comes to meetings with world political and business leaders. He is well respected by the leaders of other countries and the fact that he has expanded our markets by signing trade agreements with other countries, shows that he must have some couth. And those are all the 'social skills' he needs in my books. :smile:

I don't disagree with you, but I don't think we should lose sight of the fact he is a politician and we should still "keep an eye" on him. :smile: Don't forget Trudeau fooled a lot of people!

What did Trudeau do that was immoral?

Running up debts and charging them to other people's accounts might fit the description. :smile:

 

[Mowich]

I don't disagree with you, but I don't think we should lose sight of the fact he is a politician and we should still "keep an eye" on him. :smile: Don't forget Trudeau fooled a lot of people!

Saying that he has the necessary social skills to act on our behalf for Canada, doesn't stop me from keeping my eye on him, JLM. Nor does it make me lose sight of the fact that he is a politician. All I am saying is that what the media has to say about Mr Harper's social skills or lack thereof is of absolutely no consequence to me whatsoever.

 

[TenPenny]

IRunning up debts and charging them to other people's accounts might fit the description. :smile:

Then I would have to agree that Harper would be the most immoral PM we've had.

Oh, hey, look: Quebec gets 2.2 billion more dollars, which “...is a one-time cost for this year. It will not change the overall downward path of the deficit over the next few years,”

Right on! Go, Mr Harper, go! Fiscal responsibility, that's the name of the game!

 

[JLM]

Saying that he has the necessary social skills to act on our behalf for Canada, doesn't stop me from keeping my eye on him, JLM. Nor does it make me lose sight of the fact that he is a politician. All I am saying is that what the media has to say about Mr Harper's social skills or lack thereof is of absolutely no consequence to me whatsoever.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm NO- Harper's $ is worth about 20 cents compared to Trudeau's $.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Good on you, tallola. I never try to force my opinions, political or otherwise, on other people but I sure do commend them when they are willing to stand up and be counted. Mr Harper is a very decent person. He has a wonderful, loving perfectly normal family. He loves playing music with his kids and is a huge hockey fan - he is writing a book about hockey, I hear. He is the first PM in my lifetime who I truly believe loves this country with a passion. He was unafraid to show that passion during the Olympics and he was an inspiration to many Canadians during that time. He has his problems and his faults - he is human.

I'm guessing if Harper asked you to drink the cool-aid you would.

That might be a bit of a stretch after Trudeau and Mulroney! What about ANY politician is decent? You can't compare politicians until you remove the common denominator! :smile:

Seeing as how I actually believe the PHYSICS involved in climate change and some of the most qualified scientists like James Hansen, who is a protege of James Van Allen the man who practically created planetary science, and who predicts almost guarenteed disaster if we stay the current course, I find it hard to think of anything more immoral than what Harper is doing.

- According to Hansen if we burn all conventional fossil fuels we face a substancial risk of a runaway greenhouse effect. If we convert and burn the tar sands and oil shales then that rsik becomes certain. So basically Harper is firmly on the course of ending all life on the planet, please explain to me how that compares to what any earlier politician in this country has done. In case you're not familiar with the what a runaway greenhouse on Earth would be like try to imagine an average surface temperature of 100 degrees C

- Even if we don't cross the worst scenario line according to Hansen we're already nearing the middle of the danger zone for the complete breakdown of all the ice cover on the planet with an eventual rise in sea level of about 250 ft. Talk about screwing the Maritimes and the West Coast, not to mention the Arctic.

I could care less about someones commitment to their ideology if it goes against the facts and has probable negative consequences on the scale we're facing then there's something deeply immoral in refusing to listen to other more objective voices. Some see Harper's intransigence as a positive, I see it as bordering on the insane.

While Canada continues to win Collosal Fossil awards at international conventions on the climate Harper goes blissfully along pretending it's all normal and asks us to join him.

 

[earth_as_one]

...He has a wonderful, loving perfectly normal family. He loves playing music with his kids and is a huge hockey fan - he is writing a book about hockey, I hear. He is the first PM in my lifetime who I truly believe loves this country with a passion. He was unafraid to show that passion during the Olympics and he was an inspiration to many Canadians during that time. He has his problems and his faults - he is human.

These images have been carefully crafted by Harper's handlers. They may or may not be accurate. Even if Harper was working for a foreign power and beating his wife, his handlers would still be able to create the same public image. I thought most people were able to figure that out. I guess not.

I judge Harper by his actions, not his commercials.

He supported the US led invasion of Iraq, even though we had no proof that Iraq possessed WMDs. That would be like convicting someone of murder based solely on accusations, rather than evidence. Starting an unprovoked war is a war crime. If Harper was PM at the time, Canada would be in Iraq as well as Afghanistan and Libya. I have no doubts that Harper would abuse his authority to commit war crimes if his backers could make a profit from it. IMO, Harper is not qualified for jury duty, let alone run a country.

Remember Harper's Pro-Iraq war speech from 2003? If you don't, you could always listen to Australian PM John Howard's speech since it was basically the same, as in almost identical:

...Mr. Rae said the copied speech is evidence that Canada is losing its own voice in foreign policy under the Conservatives. He said the country has become a parrot of right-wing interests from the United States and other foreign countries.

“How does a leader in Canada's Parliament, on such a crucial issue, end up giving almost the exact same speech as any other country's leader, let alone a leader who was a key member of George W. Bush's coalition of the willing?” Mr. Rae said.

Tory campaigner resigns over plagiarized speech - The Globe and Mail

We are in an election, because Harper is in contempt of Parliament. He withheld information from the opposition regarding the cost of a multi-billion dollar project that he awarded without going through any competitive bidding process. The opposition had no choice. They were being asked to vote on something without information. Would you buy a car without knowing anything about it or how much it would eventually cost? That is effectively what Harper was trying to push through Parlianment and he thought he had the right to do this? Imagine what he would do with a majority.

Then there is the issue of Canadian forces handing over Afghan detainees to Afghans where they were tortured and executed. Harper doesn't have a problem with torture and summary execution apparently, but he doesn't want the opposition to be able to find out what really happened, so he's blocking that information too. Another reason why he is in contempt of Parliament.

Do you recall Harper's reaction to the democracy protests in Egypt? He was against Egypt becoming a democracy because letting the Egyptian people have a voice might spoil the cozy between Egypt and Israel. That was embarrassing. Harper made me ashamed to be Canadian the day he sided with a dictator against the people. I'm sorry but if you truly believe in freedom and democracy, then it can't be on condition of how it affects some other country which is not Canada. That Harper didn't come out in favor of freedom and democracy makes me believe he doesn't really have these values.

Then there is the embarrassment of the Harper government regarding climate change and the environment. We went from being one of the world leaders of the environmental movement, to one of the environmental movement's biggest liability.

At one time Harper claimed he was for transparency in government. He also used to be in favor of Senate reform. Remember when he said he wanted a elected Senate. Those positions changed as soon as he got a little power. Now he has become the most secretive authoritarian PM ever, who appoints his buddies and cronies as Senators.

Then whenever Harper is facing serious criticism in Parliament, he prorogues it, effectively shutting down Parliament. He's done that 3 times now. I think that's a record.

So here you are thinking about voting for someone because of a manufactured image which makes him look fatherly in a sweater, who supports war crimes, is secretive, may not really be representing Canada's interests and is in contempt of Parliament. I have nothing against people who want to vote conservative because they want Canada to be run by a dictator, support war crimes and want Canada to become more like the US. At least they are making an informed choice.

IMO, people should need to pass a test and get a license to vote. People who think that someone waving the Canadian flag as they stand next to their family at a hockey game has all the qualifications required to be Canada's PM should not be allowed to vote.

 

[JLM]

I'm guessing if Harper asked you to drink the cool-aid you would.



Seeing as how I actually believe the PHYSICS involved in climate change and some of the most qualified scientists like James Hansen, who is a protege of James Van Allen the man who practically created planetary science, and who predicts almost guarenteed disaster if we stay the current course, I find it hard to think of anything more immoral than what Harper is doing.

- According to Hansen if we burn all conventional fossil fuels we face a substancial risk of a runaway greenhouse effect. If we convert and burn the tar sands and oil shales then that rsik becomes certain. So basically Harper is firmly on the course of ending all life on the planet, please explain to me how that compares to what any earlier politician in this country has done. In case you're not familiar with the what a runaway greenhouse on Earth would be like try to imagine an average surface temperature of 100 degrees C

.

Ooooooh oooooh, I guess I missed the part where Harper said he was going to do that. I didn't realize that Harper is building all the vehicles, furnaces, boats, lawn mowers, A.T.V.s etc. Did Harper say if another fuel was available he'd refuse to use it?

 

[Cannuck]

Maybe they're conservative, but don't support heir Harper, I dunno..

I'm conservative and don't support Harper

What did Trudeau do that was immoral?

As somebody who considers himself as a democrat, I would have to say that the growth (dare I say push) of enabling legislation under the Trudeau regime was immoral. I guess those that don't agree with democratic principles may disagree though.

 

[TenPenny]

I promise I'll vote conservative, but not until after the deficit is gone.

Just like their campaign promises, and every bit as sincere!

 

[Machjo]

I promise I'll vote conservative, but not until after the deficit is gone.

Just in time for them to fulfil their promises.

 

[earth_as_one]

I promise I'll vote conservative, but not until after the deficit is gone.

Just like their campaign promises, and every bit as sincere!

That's hilarious!

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Ooooooh oooooh, I guess I missed the part where Harper said he was going to do that. I didn't realize that Harper is building all the vehicles, furnaces, boats, lawn mowers, A.T.V.s etc. Did Harper say if another fuel was available he'd refuse to use it?

The tar sands are the largest single source of CO2 emmissions in the country and will grow, we all could stop using our vehicles and other GHG producing activities and Canada would still be putting a massive plume of GHGs into the atmosphere due to an industry that Harper is doing his utmost to support.

The hypocrit that he is he's even stacked the Senate and used it to kill the only real climate change mitigation bill that's passed through the house.

 

[Machjo]

I'm not so worried about a conservative majority as long as my local Conservative incumbent plays no part in it otherwise it will be a disaster. I'd be more worried about the composition of a conservative majority than of the majority itself.

 

[Mowich]

These images have been carefully crafted by Harper's handlers. They may or may not be accurate. Even if Harper was working for a foreign power and beating his wife, his handlers would still be able to create the same public image. I thought most people were able to figure that out. I guess not.

I judge Harper by his actions, not his commercials.

Whoa, come on down conspiracy theorists! With all the media coverage and all the voices - such as yours - more than willing to shovel dirt at any given moment, I highly doubt Mr Harper's handlers could hide the fact that he beat his wife - if he did. Mr Harper is happily married with a stable, normal family and that is fact - not some fantasty dreamed up by his handlers - get a grip!

He supported the US led invasion of Iraq, even though we had no proof that Iraq possessed WMDs. That would be like convicting someone of murder based solely on accusations, rather than evidence. Starting an unprovoked war is a war crime. If Harper was PM at the time, Canada would be in Iraq as well as Afghanistan and Libya. I have no doubts that Harper would abuse his authority to commit war crimes if his backers could make a profit from it. IMO, Harper is not qualified for jury duty, let alone run a country.
Remember Harper's Pro-Iraq war speech from 2003? If you don't, you could always listen to Australian PM John Howard's speech since it was basically the same, as in almost identical:
Tory campaigner resigns over plagiarized speech - The Globe and Mail

Would have been a bit more pertinent had you included an acutal speech by Mr Harper.

We are in an election, because Harper is in contempt of Parliament. He withheld information from the opposition regarding the cost of a multi-billion dollar project that he awarded without going through any competitive bidding process. The opposition had no choice. They were being asked to vote on something without information. Would you buy a car without knowing anything about it or how much it would eventually cost? That is effectively what Harper was trying to push through Parlianment and he thought he had the right to do this? Imagine what he would do with a majority.

We are in an election because the opposition refused to support the budget so they could force an election.

Then there is the issue of Canadian forces handing over Afghan detainees to Afghans where they were tortured and executed. Harper doesn't have a problem with torture and summary execution apparently, but he doesn't want the opposition to be able to find out what really happened, so he's blocking that information too. Another reason why he is in contempt of Parliament.

If, IF, Canadian forces did indeed hand over Afghan detainees to the Afghans - then it was the latter who are responsible for their treatment.

Do you recall Harper's reaction to the democracy protests in Egypt? He was against Egypt becoming a democracy because letting the Egyptian people have a voice might spoil the cozy between Egypt and Israel. That was embarrassing. Harper made me ashamed to be Canadian the day he sided with a dictator against the people. I'm sorry but if you truly believe in freedom and democracy, then it can't be on condition of how it affects some other country which is not Canada. That Harper didn't come out in favor of freedom and democracy makes me believe he doesn't really have these values.

References??

Then there is the embarrassment of the Harper government regarding climate change and the environment. We went from being one of the world leaders of the environmental movement, to one of the environmental movement's biggest liability.

When were we ever 'world leaders' of the environment movement???

At one time Harper claimed he was for transparency in government. He also used to be in favor of Senate reform. Remember when he said he wanted a elected Senate. Those positions changed as soon as he got a little power. Now he has become the most secretive authoritarian PM ever, who appoints his buddies and cronies as Senators.

Given a majority government, he just might be able to act on things like Senate Reform.

Then whenever Harper is facing serious criticism in Parliament, he prorogues it, effectively shutting down Parliament. He's done that 3 times now. I think that's a record.

So here you are thinking about voting for someone because of a manufactured image which makes him look fatherly in a sweater, who supports war crimes, is secretive, may not really be representing Canada's interests and is in contempt of Parliament. I have nothing against people who want to vote conservative because they want Canada to be run by a dictator, support war crimes and want Canada to become more like the US. At least they are making an informed choice.

Actually, the thinking is already done and my vote is going to the Conservatives.

IMO, people should need to pass a test and get a license to vote. People who think that someone waving the Canadian flag as they stand next to their family at a hockey game has all the qualifications required to be Canada's PM should not be allowed to vote.

I don't support Mr Harper just because he waves our flag but I sure am proud when he does.

 

[Tonington]

Mr Harper is happily married with a stable, normal family and that is fact.

Is it a fact, or do you mean that's how it appears? How do you know, if you think this to be factual??

 

[Omicron]

How come, according to Harper, I'm supposed to be afraid of a hypothetical coalition of Lib/NDP representing the *majority* of Canadians, but I'm not supposed to be afraid of majority-seat domination by the already set-in-stone Reformacon coalition of Reform/PC representing a *minority* of Canadians?

 

[Machjo]

How come, according to Harper, I'm supposed to be afraid of a hypothetical coalition of Lib/NDP representing the *majority* of Canadians, but I'm not supposed to be afraid of majority-seat domination by the already set-in-stone Reformacon coalition of Reform/PC representing a *minority* of Canadians?

The way I look at it, all MPs function like independent MPs. As such, the cabinet ought to be formed by those MPs with the support of the majority of the House, irrespective of their party affiliation. So regardless of party composition in the House, should a number of parties form a majority coalition, then they form the government.

That said, shoudl such a coalition respect the principle of democracy, it would be an open coalition always welcoming all MPs to a Caucus of the House, and not treating those MPs outside of the coalition as an 'opposition' as such.