Harper Is A Radical - A Dangerous One !

Wow, I was going to vote for Harper anyway, but after reading that article now I'm absolutely sure I'll vote Conservative. Walkom, in his 'criticism' of Harper illuminates so many of the Conservatives good points that it behooves Canadians to give the Conservatives a majority. Walkom makes a good point about the Left being amoral, nihilistic relativists who would like to see us in the West punished for our 'profilgacy' - this self-effacing dislike is difficult to understand considering we have freedoms, good health, plenty to eat and our good fortune is helping to bring the rest of the world out of poverty too, the number of destitute are half what they were twenty years ago. Why the Left is so much against human progress is hard to fathom.

You have much to learn my young patowan. Its sad that you actually believe this stuff your saying. With Harper believing in a U.S style government in Canada. I don't see how that would mean human progress. The only human progress in a U.S style government is the survival of the fittest. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Tell me with no universal public health care. How will someone making 15,000$ a year be able to pay for hospital visits when they have just paid all their bills to survive?

If you believe in that kind of country where people do get left behind. Then yah then I can understand why you would vote for the New Conservative Party.

Kevin

---
"Love actually, is all around us" --From the movie Love Actually.

<p><i>"The logical end of this (left-liberal) thinking is the actual banning of conservative views, which some legislators and `rights' commissions (he didn't specify which) openly contemplate."</i></p> <p>Actually, if anything, the opposite is true. There's been plenty of noise from the RIGHT about banning liberal views, as supportive of terrists, as "treasonous", as any number of other things. There's been next to no noise from the left about banning fascist... Er... Conservative views, though there has been noise about reinstating media ownership rules. Notice that Harper uses the weasel words "logical end" - implying that <em>he's</em> somehow used his enlightened reasoning to follow this to its logical end and no one else has or CAN.</p> <p>In short, Harper's trying to follow the George W. Bush road to power. Claim that there's a massive conspiracy against you, and label your most strident supporters as your most horrible critics. (The "Liberal" media) Will it work here? We don't know. It depends on how many people the Liberals have alienated from the notions of basic human rights and freedoms. (Remember - in a conservative state, you have no rights unless you can pay for them!)</p> <p>Even worse... The corporate tax breaks. Canadian taxes on corporations are <em>already</em> several times lower than American taxes. This would merely make our debt problems worse.</p> <p>In short, a vote for Harper's a vote for the same American-pandering, wasteful-spending, hate-spewing government we had under the Great Mulroney in the '80s.</p>

You nailed it dead on. <br><br><a href="http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=261">The same people who brought Canada Mulroney now bring us Harper.</a>

Good call, Jim.

---
Dave Ruston

Richard Perle wasn't there? I bet he was there in some dark closet because I hear he's light sensitive. If Frum and Mulroney are backing Harper, this isn't even a Conservative party. It's the same infiltration of extrimists that took control of the Republican party in the US. This doesn't say much for the character of the members of these two parties.

The moral and the character of those two parties died with the MacKay and Orchard deal - for if you are willing to stab even your own party and its members in the back, you will have no problem doing the same to Canadian populace.

A party born in such a way just about says it all for their moral character.

Signed deals - bah - they are for suckers. - MacKay et al.

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

<a href="http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040608.wpreston08/BNStory/Front/">Preston manning writing in the Globe and Mail about minority governments in Canada</a> <br><br> <br><br> I posted this link this morning on a "new thread". I posted it without comment. I am NOT a member of the conservatives.I consider myself on the 'left' (whateve this may mean). <br><br> I have no idea about the editroial policy of this board or the reason why 'they' decided not to post the link. <br><br> I think it is an interesting article and since it is somehow related to the topic on this thread I post it here. <br><br> I kind of ask myself though what's the point of running a website where people can post opinions or provide info through links to outside sources when there is no apparent reason for not posting the message. (Don't tell me it was because the link didn't work; I gave 'instructions' for a copy/paste when it didn't work in the preview). <br><br> Weird

Mulroney was the worst Prime Minister we've had other than Arthur Mieghan (no clue how to spell his name) and that's only because he lost his government after three days. I don't trust Harper farther than I can throw a feather - helmethead or not. He's consistently had to tell us that the views of some of his candidates don't necessarily represent those of his party (which normally shouldn't be something to write home about, but they were concerning big issues that he apparently no longer has strong viewpoints on), there are issued he spoke ardently against (like same-sex marriage) before the election was called that he hasn't mentioned at all during the Campaign, and when asked about his family before the election he said "no, that's a private thing". Yet, please observe the number of photo-ops he's had with his family since Martin gave the go-code - some private thing, for sure. He's oportunistic, covers up his views, and is doing anything he can (even saying that a coalition with the Bloc will be good) to get elected - that's all I think he cares about. The "new" conservatives haven't even had a policy meeting yet. Granted, that was part of Martin's strategy, but the Conservatives did have almost six months to do it, and six months to choose candidates. Surely there was a weekend in there to discuss policy; everyone knew the election was coming up. But instead, he's asking us to elect a government that hasn't even decided what it believes. Maybe he's afraid that if he does have a policy meeting everything will fall apart. I think he's trying to get too many people to like him - that's what Mulroney did and where are the PCs now? Where's Mulroney for that matter? I'm also scared that Harper has a hidden agenda that will just plain screw us once he's in.

Manning is a fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Enough said.



---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

L Ray,

It's never likely your submission will be posted the same day. This is an interesting article and I'll be surprised if it doesn't show up.

<br><br> Jim Callaghan, <br><br> It is absolutely ridicolous, to use a polite term, to dismiss an article (which apparently you found unnecessary to read) on the basis of Manning's affiliation with the Fraser Institute. <br><br> I have no use for this outfit and expecting something like this I added that 'I'm on the left'. <br><br> It's a very good article. It's about some of our history. <br><br> This site is full of nationalists -it seems- and you don't even find it necessary to look into past minority governments in Canada, <b>given the present situation, i.e. that we might very well end up with a minority government,</b> something I am hoping for. <br><br> I think it would be good for the country. <br><br> But reading a comment like this, I'm not so sure any more. <br><br> <b>BTW it's the kind of reaction I experienced on the US site on which I posted for more than a year (I was the lone Canadian there and besides a couple of others all were American): Almost all the posters there had their opinion of an article or opinion determined by the party affiliation of a writer. No need to do any thinking, is there?</b> <br><br> Maybe we Canadians aren't all THAT different from the Yankees. <br><br> Now I have to run and duck all the objects coming flying my way. <br><br> :)

<br><br> Jim, <br><br> I forgot to say that I find your quote at the end of your posts ("Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable") very interesting in the context of your answer to a link I posted for the benefit of everybody else. <br><br> Hey I already read the piece before I posted the link. <br><br> And in all my writings over several decades I have NEVER been accused of sympathising with the Fraser Institute or their ilk. <br><br> As a matter of fact anybody who knows me would just burst out laughing about the implications of your 'critique'.

This is the second time I've read something Manning has written since he retired from Politics that I've agreed with most of. I'm surprised I'm saying that. But it is a very good article, and gives some very pertinent points. I'm not sure about the permanent free-vote system, but minority government (sorry - this isn't really related to Harper, but anyway) I think will be very good for Canada. Recall that Lester B Pearson's minority government (1962 to 1967) 1) lasted for five years and 2) instigated and completed a radical change to Canada's immigration policy (almost a reversal from the various bits of one that existed since 1867) that hasn't changed a whole lot since. Clearly minority government can not only be a cooling mechanism, but can also be extremely productive and make very lasting contributions.