"Canadian voters have been led to believe that American conservatives are scary and if the Conservative party can be linked with us, they can perhaps diminish a Conservative victory," the email warned.
After Harper's victory in an election Weyrich found "exciting to watch", he penned a story for his organisation's website describing both pessimistic and optimistic scenarios that could result from the election's outcome.
According to Weyrich, conservative pessimists told him that since they lack a parliamentary majority, the best Harper can do is to "adopt a more reasonable view of the United States and to correct some premises of Cultural Marxism, which Canadians have espoused, such as same-sex marriage and abortion-on-demand".
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32076
Note: http://www.ipsnews.net/...
For U.S. Right, Canada Is The Great White Hope
Posted on Thursday, February 09 at 09:56 by nancymarieContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
So what is it that you think Harper will do that is so bad? Well, lets look at his plans... He is going to pass the accountability act - I doubt anyone here has issues with that. He's going to limit contributions to $1000, down from the $5K they are now. Harper will repeal the Liberal daycare initiative (and none too soon) and will engage in debate on BMT, possibly even entering into the agreement (which doesn't equate to weapons in space despite Mr. Hurtig's outrageous accusations). He will increase the size of the military. He is going to trim the GST and look at family/household tax rates. Harper is also going to try and deal with the "fiscal imbalance", so the Feds shouldn't have whopping surpluses while the provinces starve. And, he's going to try for the elected Senate (though there is nothing stopping him from using the existing structure to his favour now). And he's going to look at Medicare - possibly opening up private clinics.
So the only thing I see there that the people on this site would object to is the BMT and private care. Both of which should be vigorously debated, and not from the one side that is all that has been represented thus far.
He's not touching abortion, women's rights, or any other civil rights. He might get the opportunity to touch on immigration, but I doubt he'll be in long enough.
And let's face it... if he does even 1/2 of the items listed above he will have done more than 12 years of Liberal rule. The ONLY thing the Liberals did was dig us out of deficit and put us on the right financial track. If Harper loses that, I'll be PO'ed, but I need to see the first budget before I pass judgement.
---
Dave Ruston
Gay marriage is a red herring. Nothing is going to change.
And the Conservative party is about as right as the Democrats in the US. I hope you actually meet a fascist one day so then you can actually recognize one.
And no doubt allow back channel contributions to continue.
>Harper will repeal the Liberal daycare initiative (and none too soon)
Obviously you are well enough off financially to not have to worry about such frivolities as paying for daycare while your spouse works in order to help maintain the household.
My guess is that you're against minimum wage as well. We can't allow the working class to have a reasonable standard of living now, can we? Best keep them under our thumbs where they belong.
>The ONLY thing the Liberals did was dig us out of deficit and put us on the right financial track
ONLY? If that's all they did then I say throw them a parade and give them each their own stamps.
You're a funny man. Haven't laughed that hard in a long time.
And anything to the right of Pierre Trudeau is deemed "fascist" by people like Dave Ruston.
It's not surprising that the liberal-left in Canada feels entitled to having its side perpetually in power. After all, the entitlement mentality is at the very heart of left-wing Canadian politics.
Leftists feel entitled to having their views communicated at the public's expense (CBC). They feel entitled to having their activist organizations subsidized (NAC). They feel entitled to have schoolchildren indoctrinated in their collectivist/egalitarian doctrines. They feel entitled to working for a living only if it suits their lifestyle.
Harper won the election the old-fashioned way. He *earned* it. He worked hard and campaigned intelligently. I know that "earn" is a dirty word to the left, but as a principle for determining distribution of wealth in our society, I'll take earning over entitlement anyday.
And let's face it, Harper was denied a majority only because Toronto voters knew Harper wouldn't buy into that "cities agenda" scam, which was just as excuse to suck money out of rural Canada and hand it to unaccountable big city mayors. Another case of the entitlement mentality run amok.
If you're not certain what I'm talking about, just read the Toronto Star editorials page. I can't think of a better place to research the left-wing/urban entitlement mentality.
<br />
My wife and I both work. My wife makes more than me, so when we have kids, I'll be taking the bulk of the time off. We will need daycare, because I will be going back to work, because despite two incomes I don't have financial freedom yet. However, like many Canadians, I won't be putting my kids in some state run facility. I will find a facility I like or I will work out something with a member of the family to take care of my children. <br />
<br />
The only thing the Liberal plan did was secure additional union positions. Union membership has been declining for years, so what better way to prop up membership and thus influence but invent a new industry? Unions have been rejected from the majority of industries and even their once stedfast bastions in the auto sector look close to collapse thanks in no small part to the success of line workers at Toyota or Honda. The collapse of the NA automakers is in part due to the restrictive policies that their unions have saddled them with. With the death knell of the automakers, the CAW will fade into obscurity. The only remaining unions that have any power are within the public service. So they need to prop up their influence by generating a new artificial industry. <br />
<br />
Harper's plan is only .2 billion dollars less over 10 years. It creates 125,000 new spaces (as opposed to the 625,000 the Liberals claimed they could build - unfortunately, their model doesn't include set up fees and generation of infrastructure so their real number dwindles down to less than half of their claim) but it makes those spaces private, not government run. Actually, if you use the limited Ontario model, the Liberal plan will generate less spaces than the Conservative plan (spaces in Quebec are $8000 a head, in Ontario they are $44,000 - this is due to the fact that set up and maintenance costs in Quebec are buried in education funding, whereas they are separated out in Ontario). So in the long run, unless the Liberals planned to inject yet more funding into the equation, the Conservative plan actually garners more spaces for children. <br />
<br />
Government run daycare per the Liberal plan was based on the model of Quebec. Much like anything else the government runs, the costs have been skyrocketing with only marginal success. Despite the costs, the number of additional women entering the workforce has been substantially less than the number of people taking advantage of the spaces made available. The people taking advantage of the government spaces are also predominantly middle and upper class, not the poor downtrodden masses you (and I) want to help. Once again, a government program that is taken advantage of by people who really didn't need it in the first place. <br />
<br />
The NDP plan advocates a ban on all "big box" for profit child care centers. I don't know who would have any bigger box than the government if the Liberal plan were put into effect. But then again, without that ban, the government couldn't compete with the private sector. <br />
<br />
At least the Harper model includes everyone equally and doesn't set up a vast new bureaucracy to deal with the administration and monitoring of this white elephant. The last thing this country needs is a new medicare fiasco where costs spiral out of control and service deteriorates. <br />
<br />
There has also been the arguement that public daycare is somehow more compassionate than private care. Please, bored union caretakers are no better at keeping an eye on my kids than some person who operates the center out of their home. Take the Quebec example from the public system that occurred recently:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/09/daycare-nap060209.html">http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/09/daycare-nap060209.html</a><br />
<br />
So Deacon, if you want to debate, bring whatever arguements you have and I'll be glad to discuss them rationally. If you decide instead to continue to cast innuendo and conjecture, I'll acquiesce to your obviously superior intellect and cede the arguement to you.
Harper is already a liar, but we already knew that didn't we? There is no trusting him, even if you think he earned it. Otherwise you may be kidding yourself. Paul Martin might have been a sell out, but Harper wants to be one even more. The Neo-Con agenda is world hegenomy lead by the USA and NATO, or in another the North and South American Union and the EU. Paul Martin was totally on board with the program even though he blathered his anti-american rhetoric, it was just for show. Like a professional wrestler.
Harper is open about his Neo-Con-ness he just realizes that most people don't understand what that means. Watch for increased millitarization of the country, and possible terrorist attacks including large attacks on our troops in Afganistan.
They may even allow a terrorist attack to happen in Ontario or something if they think it will scare the "urbanite entitlement sheep" into supporting the soon to be widened comflict in the Middle East.
In regards to the article, the guy writing it is indeed a total nut. He is a Pat Robertson type. 'nuff said.
Not new(s)
Harper may have been up to his old tricks re; emerson
and it may cost him his seat
---
Nothing in this World makes People so Afraid as the Influence of an Independant Minded Individual.
Attrib. Al Einstien
<a href="http://www.farcep.org/pagina_ingles/">http://www.farcep.org/pagina_ingles/</a><br />
And you out to change your monniker, Individualists aren't in favor of that form of collectivism called corporate capitalism. If you want to check out some real individualists try: <a href="http://www.mutualist.org">http://www.mutualist.org</a><br />
Maybe you will learn something...<br />
When I was 20 years younger than I am now, I believed much as you do now. Too much government, free enterprise,..yadda yadda yadda.
In the time between then and now I have learned from first hand observation the following truth: the "free market" is indeed efficient, but only at harvesting cash. Staff and standards both get slashed in the search for "effiencies" and higher profit margines.
Free market daycare would no doubt suffer the same fate as free market everything else.
I'd rather trust the government than profiteers, in my opinion it is the lesser of the two eveils.
I hope that clarifies my position.
And yes, the Star and CBC are left. So is the Globe, Global, CTV, and just about every other media source in this country with the exception of the SUN and National Post. But I guess in your world they are corporate fascist propoganda machines.
I've worked for large companies and small, government and myself... and my first hand observation is that government wastes a lot of money and private enterprise wastes less. The larger the company, the larger the waste tends to be... and if a small company is wasteful, they just don't last too long.
And I wouldn't say that the free market is always efficient - look at Ford as a prime example of that. But government is even worse. I'm always confused why people here rail against the government, but then make statements like your fifth paragraph; that you would "rather trust the government than profiteers". Instead of picking an evil outright, why not have one monitor the other?
I want government to set the laws and restrictions under which people in society can act and provide the necessary protections and infrastructure to allow the people to thrive. In that vein, I want government inspectors and regulators to monitor daycares. I want minimum guidelines established and enforced. I don't want a brand new government run industry that will cost far more than its worth.
What I said WAS as follows:
"When I was 20 years younger than I am now, I believed much as you do now. Too much government, free enterprise,..yadda yadda yadda.
In the time between then and now I have learned from first hand observation the following truth: the "free market" is indeed efficient, but only at harvesting cash. Staff and standards both get slashed in the search for "effiencies" and higher profit margines."
I said I once believed as you did.
I also gave the observations I made over the last 20 years.
I did not wax nostalgic for the "good old days", I told what I observed.
As for the snide wayback machine comment, you don't have to go back even 20 months to see examples of what I described.
I also said that I considered the government to be the lesser of the two evils, that you seem to see private enterprise as some form of universal magic pill for everything is your cross to bear, not mine.