"Stephen Harper" Ad

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ditto as above.

Harper has brought more attention to arctic issues than any PM in a long time, but his record on it still isn't stellar. I highly question his decision to eliminate the position of ambassador of circumpolar affairs; he backed down on his election promise of three armed icebreakers and instead purchased one icebreaker. As well, Canada's arctic polar mapping project (which will be key, given that polar shelf claims need to be submitted by 2013) is underfunded compared with what other nations are doing. It's a step forward from recent governments, but it's still far less than I hoped for given his election promises.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Harper has brought more attention to arctic issues than any PM in a long time, but his record on it still isn't stellar. I highly question his decision to eliminate the position of ambassador of circumpolar affairs; he backed down on his election promise of three armed icebreakers and instead purchased one icebreaker. As well, Canada's arctic polar mapping project (which will be key, given that polar shelf claims need to be submitted by 2013) is underfunded compared with what other nations are doing. It's a step forward from recent governments, but it's still far less than I hoped for given his election promises.

Wow. We actually had an Ambassador of Circumpolar Affairs? Or is that just what we're calling Stronach these days?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

...by repealing income tax cuts that were passed by Paul Martin's previous government. The tax burder for most Canadians is no better under Harper than it was before. Numerous retailers have even raised their prices slightly to offset the reduction to the GST, so consumers are still paying the same amount for many products as they were prior to the GST cut.

Correct me if I am wrong but he lowered the income tax back to 15% effective this year.

[Mccree]

^^

That is correct.

He also increased the spousal amount so that it matches the personal exemption.
$2000/child tax credit which saved my family $600.
$500/child fitness credit

There is alot he has done on the tax side of things.

[transplant99]

March Hare trying to belittle EVERYTHING a Conservative has done....stunning development there,

I agree Harper has failed to live up to some things he said he would do...but do say he has done absolutely nothing in the face of all the stuff listed here alone...just shows abias that simply is looking through red colored glasses...no more and no less.

In fact...compared to what Martin "accomplished" the guy is a freaking genious.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'd still like to do a write in vote for the Palpatine and Vader party, crushing personal liberties through the force since order 66

[MarchHare]

March Hare trying to belittle EVERYTHING a Conservative has done....stunning development there,

Actually, you'll note that in my post I commended Harper's/the CPC's accomplishments in apologizing for the Chinese head tax and his stance on Arctic sovereignty.

I agree Harper has failed to live up to some things he said he would do...but do say he has done absolutely nothing in the face of all the stuff listed here alone...just shows abias that simply is looking through red colored glasses...no more and no less.

Show me where I ever said he's done nothing. I don't agree with everything he's done (although I certainly support some of it -- his budgets have been good for the most part), and surely he hasn't been able to accomplish all he would have liked because of his minority position, but I've never said he's done nothing.

And don't try to take the high and mighty road and state that only liberals on this forum have biased views. How often have there been posts (perhaps even by you, I can't remember specifically) stating that the Liberals under Chretien and Martin did absolutely nothing or what little they did do was awful for Canada? Obviously you don't agree with everything they did, but balancing the budget was one of the most important political milestones in Canadian politics in decades. Defeating the PQ and Bloc Quebecois in the 1995 referendum and subsequently passing the Clarity Act was also a major accomplishment, and let's not forget about Chretien's decision to keep the Canadian Forces out of the Iraq misadventure which was both a wise decision at the time that only looks better and better with the benefit of hindsight. Had Harper been PM in 2003, our soldiers would have been fighting and dying in that travesty of a war.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

...and let's not forget about Chretien's decision to keep the Canadian Forces out of the Iraq misadventure which was both a wise decision at the time that only looks better and better with the benefit of hindsight.

Hindsight eh?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by lchoy

Dude, read it how Flames in 07 interpreted my post. Of course I know what a minority government is (I do work for the government you know). We are talking about attack ads. Before the Harper government was elected, there was a bunch of ads and vocal opponents all predicting doom and gloom. Gay rights would be gone, women would go back to the back alleys for abortions, we would be in continuous state of military deployment with the Americans. The point I was trying to make was that attack ads are just that, all attack, little substance. Our world didn't explode, our economy didn't tank, the Oilers didn't win the cup, we pretty much had a pretty good couple of years under conservatives. No party is perfect of course, but no where near the scale some of the Conservatives opponents made it out to be

You totally missed my point.

You're lauding him for not doing things that he couldn't possibly have done in the first place, because he has a minority government.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Hindsight eh?

Ooh, clever.

The Liberals really had their head in their ass when they decided that Canada would sit out the invasion of Iraq. We'll never get over that blunder.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ooh, clever.

The Liberals really had their head in their ass when they decided that Canada would sit out the invasion of Iraq. We'll never get over that blunder.

I love how the Liberals always go to that.

It would seem to me the whole thing was just common sense, not some great Liberal epiphany about the future course of history. So what if Harper had sent in the troops? Guess maybe he would not be PM today. BUT, he did not have to make that call and so lucky him.

Time will tell which leaders end up being better for Canada, but looking at his record so far, I give a solid B+.

[Slava]

^^ Thing is that Harper didn't have to make the call...but he still did his best to campaign to send troops. A lot of people in western Canada wanted to send troops. Some groups were taking out ads in the NY Times and such to proclaim that we shoudl be there with the U.S.

Naturally the Liberals are going to "go to that". Its a major decision that was also a major difference between them and their biggest rival.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I love how the Liberals always go to that.

It would seem to me the whole thing was just common sense, not some great Liberal epiphany about the future course of history. So what if Harper had sent in the troops? Guess maybe he would not be PM today. BUT, he did not have to make that call and so lucky him.

Time will tell which leaders end up being better for Canada, but looking at his record so far, I give a solid B+.

I'm not a Liberal and I've never voted for them.

You quoted a post about how the Liberal's kept Canada out of Iraq and responded with a picture of a "Liberal" with his head up his ass.

Looking back, I see that the inclusion of the word "hindsight" was an excellent chance for you to post that hilarious picture, so good call on that one.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not a Liberal and I've never voted for them.

Closet NDP?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not a Liberal and I've never voted for them.

You quoted a post about how the Liberal's kept Canada out of Iraq and responded with a picture of a "Liberal" with his head up his ass.

Looking back, I see that the inclusion of the word "hindsight" was an excellent chance for you to post that hilarious picture, so good call on that one.

All I was going for.

[Dan02]

I thought the main reason we didn't get involved in Iraq was because we didn't have enough manpower with our commitments in Afghanistan?

And seeing as the war in Iraq is going better then the war in Afghanistan currently, I think we should avoid patting ourselves on the back for our brilliant militairy decisions.

[MarchHare]

^^ Thing is that Harper didn't have to make the call...but he still did his best to campaign to send troops. A lot of people in western Canada wanted to send troops. Some groups were taking out ads in the NY Times and such to proclaim that we shoudl be there with the U.S.

It wasn't just "some groups" -- it was Stephen Harper (then leader of the Alliance) himself! He and Stockwell Day wrote this letter which was published in the Wall Street Journal:

Canadians Stand With You

By STEPHEN HARPER and STOCKWELL DAY

Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.

This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us.

But we will not be with the Canadian government.

Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century -- against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism -- Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand -- and I believe most Canadians will stand with us -- for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future.

Messrs. Harper and Day are the leader and shadow foreign minister, respectively, of the Canadian Alliance.

In other news, Harper announced today $80 million in government spending (which he insists is not related to the upcoming election at all) to bail-out a Ford plant in Ontario. This, of course, is blatant vote buying, with the Canadian taxpayer footing the bill. I hope everyone here can agree that it's wrong when any governing party does this, whether they be Liberals (and they've certainly been guilty too, when they've been in power) or Conservatives.

Harper's previous position, which I fully agreed with, was that public money should not be used to prop up private businesses. It's a damn shame he's abandoned that principled stance on the eve of an election call.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/0...fordmoney.html

[MarchHare]

I thought the main reason we didn't get involved in Iraq was because we didn't have enough manpower with our commitments in Afghanistan?

No, we did have troops available to send to Iraq. A very good friend of mine (who has since completed two tours in Afghanistan) was training specifically for the Iraq mission if the UN had authorized force and the Canadian government decided to send our soldiers.

And seeing as the war in Iraq is going better then the war in Afghanistan currently, I think we should avoid patting ourselves on the back for our brilliant militairy decisions.

One could easily argue that NATO forces would be doing much better in Afghanistan now if the British and Americans hadn't been so occupied with the Iraq mess for the last 5+ years.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I thought the main reason we didn't get involved in Iraq was because we didn't have enough manpower with our commitments in Afghanistan?

And seeing as the war in Iraq is going better then the war in Afghanistan currently, I think we should avoid patting ourselves on the back for our brilliant militairy decisions.

The way I remember it, we didn't get in on the invasion of Iraq because the UN wasn't behind it and the WMD stuff and the "threat" that Iraq posed to us wasn't quite as ominous as it was made out to be by some rather powerful people (aided, as always, by the left wing media).

[CaptainCrunch]

It was two fold, Central Command in Florida was approached by the Canadian Forces about Iraq, and Central Command looked at the equipment and manpower availability and said no thanks, Canada would have been a burden at the time.

Chretien then skipped over to Afghanistan so that he could look like he was doing womething.

Sure Iraq wasn't UN approved, but the American's had very little interest in Canada's contribution as a fighting force against a battle hardened well equipt Iraqi army, they might have had us help out from a logistics standpoint but thats about it.