Harper is a coward and a hypocrite, always was and always will be. More pandering to Queerbec and he is hoping to win seats in Ontario. Some chance what with this and Fantino.
Gee but the polls are up or higher in Québec and Ontario !?
Firstly I do agree that these new seats should have gone ahead and don’t know in sufficient detail the ” strategic reasons ” why Harper is deferring this for “maybe ” after a majority.
Yes it’s wonderful to be pure of heart and brave and to deliberately charge into the thickest part of a battle when any minimal tactical sense would tell you that it’s a guarantied loss of the battle: Many a battle has been lost historically by too much bravery and not enough sense.
Secondly I understand the frustrations with Québec and it’s political culture, I live there and I don’t like it myself ! But Québec bashing or Toronto bashing or bashing the West is counter productive if it involves only raging frustration rather than reasoned debate and justified disagreement.
Pandering to inflexible and bitter ideologues is also a great way to lose votes instead of trying to find a middle ground that will attract the majority of voters …… how far one can compromise and for how long before core principles are abandoned is a realistic concern, and debatable, but I wish it could be expressed without resorting to fuming and spitting out words like ” coward ” or ” hypocrite ” !
Funny, without the invectives I would probably have agreed with you 100%: The only results of aggressive language is to turn off potential allies ! The words evoke a negative emotional reaction rather than convincing i.e. counter productive to convincing LOL.
Before becoming PM in 2006 Harper said HRCs were dangerous to free speech and that he didn’t believe in the science of global warming.
We all know what happened with the HRC, Lynch and her thugs, budget and personnel increased and nothing done about sec13 even after %99 of the delegates in Winnipeg voted to get rid of it.
Harper was at the Copehagen warming scam and Canada was one of the first 4 countries to sign the accord, along with $400 mill being diverted from foreign aid to his secret deal towards the UN scam. That is hypocrisy.
Cowardice: He caved to the coalition of the stupid and cancelled parlaiament instead of calling their bluff. When the Libs were calling Canada’s military war criminals Harper and his min of D hid, they didn’t stand up for the military. Instead once again he cancelled parliament.
Well, that is bringing in valid arguments for debate with content and explaining what you are disappointed about: I guess I could get creative and find spin to justify ” hypocrisy ” which in politics are part of the tool chest.
As far as I’m concerned the Global warming thing is a fraud and I would be disappointed if Harper ever did something clearly supporting it, but so far the ” hypocrisy ” may be, I hope, marching in place doing as little as possible waiting for the idea to fall apart: Last year openly opposing it would have been political suicide, so yes ” hypocrisy ” may be useful or needed at times ! But, down the line I might fully agree with you but at the very least I see little to gain in having the Liberals and NDP in charge with the help of the BLOCK: So, what do we do ? Give up on Harper and enjoy the Government of the Coalition ?
So I’m not unconditionally for Harper but he hasn’t crossed the line, at least for me yet, where having the Liberals in power would be the same or better.
I do respect your last post as it does get to the points you are trying to make whether I agree with it or not, in full or in part: At least this approach makes me consider your ideas even if I am inclined to rationalize them away. ( said with full respect for your position ).
Problem is Jean the coalition with their majority are running things now. Gun registry and now Harper backing down on this seat thing. Sorry hypocrisy is never right. That is what I expect from the Libs and NDP.
I agree with what has to be done in many if not most of these policies, I’m still hoping that we can get some or most of it done if when we get a majority. In the mean time I hope we can mitigate the damage the Coalition is trying to do.
But, at some point one does have to make a stand and Harper should be making the mischief legislation the Coalition is pushing through a confidence vote and let the chips fall where they may. ( especially an unpopular one with the public ).
In the mean time the Senate we now control can dispose of some of this garbage.
As to the Gun registry although I want it gone I would rather have a future bill that restores balance for gun owners because so much of the current legislation doesn’t respect fundamental right of property and most of the useless rules do nothing for public safety but treat gun owners in a way that they have fewer rights than convicted criminal on parole. The longgun registry is mostly just a waste of money and an irritant and it’s repealing should be just a small part of restoring fairness to the system.
On fundamentals I think we agree and being unhappy with Harper can be used to make sure he doesn’t take our support for granted or unconditional: I’m just more hopeful that given a majority many of the issues we care about will be addressed in a satisfactory manner.
I do appreciate that after maybe a few less positive exchanges of views we are at least in courteous and respectful territory and listening to the other’s views even if we disagree about tactics and the immediate best way to proceed as long as we continue to have a minority Government.
On Friday, the Globe and Mail’s John Ibbitson, set off a minor firestorm by reporting that “the Harper government and the opposition parties have agreed to quietly sink (the) legislation,” largely because it is unpopular with Quebec and the Atlantic provinces who see it as diluting their influence in Ottawa.
The Conservatives quickly denied the report. Minister for Democratic Reform Stephen Fletcher of Winnipeg reassured reporters that C-12 will come up for debate next year and, with luck, be in place by 2012.
This is weak, because we are likely to have an election before 2012, which means it could be five or six more years before the three shortchanged provinces see any redress.
Although the CPC has denied the story, Gunter is quick to point out that the response is weak. At least the response is the correct one. It is now up to the media to ask the NDP and the Liberals if they support the CPC position.
Carolyn Bennett, the Toronto MP who is the Liberals’ democratic reform critic, told the Globe’s Ibbitson that giving the three fast-growing provinces more seats, without “robust consultation with the provinces,” was “no way to run a federation.”
Well, setting up the federation as a perpetual siphon cemented in place by a parliamentary imbalance is no way to run a federation either.
Frankly, I can’t imagine Bennett and the Liberals sticking up for provincial consultation if it were Alberta and B.C. complaining. The Liberals’ sudden concern for provincial opinions is almost certainly a ruse for their desire to placate Quebec and hold their support in Atlantic Canada.
A fair comment on the Liberal position I would think.
There is a fact to be considered whenever there is a report in the media… who benifits from the report? Is this just another Wafergate? Another MSM firestorm based on “reports” from unamed sources who are whispering into the ear of the media the words they want to hear, without the media actually confirming those words.
Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic MPs and party strategists, speaking on condition that they not be named, stated this week that the bill has no chance of passage.
Supports the narrative without proof. What kind of news story is that?
Minister of State for Democratic Reform Steven Fletcher’s office said the minister was not available to be interviewed. However “our government is moving forward with the Democratic Representation Act,” said spokesperson Jessica Georgakopoulos. She added that “it is anticipated” that the bill will be brought forward for debate next year.
But when MP Steven Fletcher was asked he refuted the story… I guess they couldn’t wait to run it.
Stop jumping to conclusions based on stories from the media that come from sources that are too afraid to be named people! I prefer to let the CPC prove to me they don’t support their own bill rather than believe a reporter who can’t provide proof.
[...] terms of political discourse in this country are, to be polite, out to flipping progressive lunch. To conclude: Stephen Harper’s agenda is so well [...]
Harper is a coward and a hypocrite, always was and always will be. More pandering to Queerbec and he is hoping to win seats in Ontario. Some chance what with this and Fantino.
Gee but the polls are up or higher in Québec and Ontario !?
Firstly I do agree that these new seats should have gone ahead and don’t know in sufficient detail the ” strategic reasons ” why Harper is deferring this for “maybe ” after a majority.
Yes it’s wonderful to be pure of heart and brave and to deliberately charge into the thickest part of a battle when any minimal tactical sense would tell you that it’s a guarantied loss of the battle: Many a battle has been lost historically by too much bravery and not enough sense.
Secondly I understand the frustrations with Québec and it’s political culture, I live there and I don’t like it myself ! But Québec bashing or Toronto bashing or bashing the West is counter productive if it involves only raging frustration rather than reasoned debate and justified disagreement.
Pandering to inflexible and bitter ideologues is also a great way to lose votes instead of trying to find a middle ground that will attract the majority of voters …… how far one can compromise and for how long before core principles are abandoned is a realistic concern, and debatable, but I wish it could be expressed without resorting to fuming and spitting out words like ” coward ” or ” hypocrite ” !
Funny, without the invectives I would probably have agreed with you 100%: The only results of aggressive language is to turn off potential allies ! The words evoke a negative emotional reaction rather than convincing i.e. counter productive to convincing LOL.
Good comment, it’s a tough political and otherwise world out there.
Mark
Ottawa
Guess like others of the Harper party you cannot stand the truth.
One mans truth is another man’s difference of opinion: Judge not less you be judged LOL.
Hmmmm: The if you don’t agree with me you must be stupid argument !
Before becoming PM in 2006 Harper said HRCs were dangerous to free speech and that he didn’t believe in the science of global warming.
We all know what happened with the HRC, Lynch and her thugs, budget and personnel increased and nothing done about sec13 even after %99 of the delegates in Winnipeg voted to get rid of it.
Harper was at the Copehagen warming scam and Canada was one of the first 4 countries to sign the accord, along with $400 mill being diverted from foreign aid to his secret deal towards the UN scam. That is hypocrisy.
Cowardice: He caved to the coalition of the stupid and cancelled parlaiament instead of calling their bluff. When the Libs were calling Canada’s military war criminals Harper and his min of D hid, they didn’t stand up for the military. Instead once again he cancelled parliament.
Is this enough discussion or do you want more?
Well, that is bringing in valid arguments for debate with content and explaining what you are disappointed about: I guess I could get creative and find spin to justify ” hypocrisy ” which in politics are part of the tool chest.
As far as I’m concerned the Global warming thing is a fraud and I would be disappointed if Harper ever did something clearly supporting it, but so far the ” hypocrisy ” may be, I hope, marching in place doing as little as possible waiting for the idea to fall apart: Last year openly opposing it would have been political suicide, so yes ” hypocrisy ” may be useful or needed at times ! But, down the line I might fully agree with you but at the very least I see little to gain in having the Liberals and NDP in charge with the help of the BLOCK: So, what do we do ? Give up on Harper and enjoy the Government of the Coalition ?
So I’m not unconditionally for Harper but he hasn’t crossed the line, at least for me yet, where having the Liberals in power would be the same or better.
I do respect your last post as it does get to the points you are trying to make whether I agree with it or not, in full or in part: At least this approach makes me consider your ideas even if I am inclined to rationalize them away. ( said with full respect for your position ).
Problem is Jean the coalition with their majority are running things now. Gun registry and now Harper backing down on this seat thing. Sorry hypocrisy is never right. That is what I expect from the Libs and NDP.
I agree with what has to be done in many if not most of these policies, I’m still hoping that we can get some or most of it done if when we get a majority. In the mean time I hope we can mitigate the damage the Coalition is trying to do.
But, at some point one does have to make a stand and Harper should be making the mischief legislation the Coalition is pushing through a confidence vote and let the chips fall where they may. ( especially an unpopular one with the public ).
In the mean time the Senate we now control can dispose of some of this garbage.
As to the Gun registry although I want it gone I would rather have a future bill that restores balance for gun owners because so much of the current legislation doesn’t respect fundamental right of property and most of the useless rules do nothing for public safety but treat gun owners in a way that they have fewer rights than convicted criminal on parole. The longgun registry is mostly just a waste of money and an irritant and it’s repealing should be just a small part of restoring fairness to the system.
On fundamentals I think we agree and being unhappy with Harper can be used to make sure he doesn’t take our support for granted or unconditional: I’m just more hopeful that given a majority many of the issues we care about will be addressed in a satisfactory manner.
I do appreciate that after maybe a few less positive exchanges of views we are at least in courteous and respectful territory and listening to the other’s views even if we disagree about tactics and the immediate best way to proceed as long as we continue to have a minority Government.
Lorne Gunter had a good response to the Globe story here :
http://www.theprovince.com/about-the-province/Gunter+Alberta+second+class+status+will+remain+bill+dies/3943662/story.html
On Friday, the Globe and Mail’s John Ibbitson, set off a minor firestorm by reporting that “the Harper government and the opposition parties have agreed to quietly sink (the) legislation,” largely because it is unpopular with Quebec and the Atlantic provinces who see it as diluting their influence in Ottawa.
The Conservatives quickly denied the report. Minister for Democratic Reform Stephen Fletcher of Winnipeg reassured reporters that C-12 will come up for debate next year and, with luck, be in place by 2012.
This is weak, because we are likely to have an election before 2012, which means it could be five or six more years before the three shortchanged provinces see any redress.
Although the CPC has denied the story, Gunter is quick to point out that the response is weak. At least the response is the correct one. It is now up to the media to ask the NDP and the Liberals if they support the CPC position.
Carolyn Bennett, the Toronto MP who is the Liberals’ democratic reform critic, told the Globe’s Ibbitson that giving the three fast-growing provinces more seats, without “robust consultation with the provinces,” was “no way to run a federation.”
Well, setting up the federation as a perpetual siphon cemented in place by a parliamentary imbalance is no way to run a federation either.
Frankly, I can’t imagine Bennett and the Liberals sticking up for provincial consultation if it were Alberta and B.C. complaining. The Liberals’ sudden concern for provincial opinions is almost certainly a ruse for their desire to placate Quebec and hold their support in Atlantic Canada.
A fair comment on the Liberal position I would think.
There is a fact to be considered whenever there is a report in the media… who benifits from the report? Is this just another Wafergate? Another MSM firestorm based on “reports” from unamed sources who are whispering into the ear of the media the words they want to hear, without the media actually confirming those words.
Read the story here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-parties-agree-to-scrap-bill-to-correct-voting-inequalities/article1823068/
What a loaded story!
Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic MPs and party strategists, speaking on condition that they not be named, stated this week that the bill has no chance of passage.
Supports the narrative without proof. What kind of news story is that?
Minister of State for Democratic Reform Steven Fletcher’s office said the minister was not available to be interviewed. However “our government is moving forward with the Democratic Representation Act,” said spokesperson Jessica Georgakopoulos. She added that “it is anticipated” that the bill will be brought forward for debate next year.
But when MP Steven Fletcher was asked he refuted the story… I guess they couldn’t wait to run it.
Stop jumping to conclusions based on stories from the media that come from sources that are too afraid to be named people! I prefer to let the CPC prove to me they don’t support their own bill rather than believe a reporter who can’t provide proof.
[...] terms of political discourse in this country are, to be polite, out to flipping progressive lunch. To conclude: Stephen Harper’s agenda is so well [...]