Harper learning from G.W.Bush
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 Next
EyeBrock @ Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:40 pm
tritium tritium:
Look I understand the political landscape of Canada. It has been proven that educated people vote towards Liberal or Social Values.
The Uneducated, the followers are usually Conservatives, bible thumpers.
I can see from the above two posts that the Canadian educational systems is obviously slipping.
Harper/CICS/RCMP whatever. These fuckes were "entrapped." The RCMP sold them the goods.
These where Canadian citizens (Camel Jockeys, yes, but Canadians nevertheless). Their rights as Canadians were violated.
The Uneducated, the followers are usually Conservatives, bible thumpers.
I can see from the above two posts that the Canadian educational systems is obviously slipping.
Harper/CICS/RCMP whatever. These fuckes were "entrapped." The RCMP sold them the goods.
These where Canadian citizens (Camel Jockeys, yes, but Canadians nevertheless). Their rights as Canadians were violated.
I think you'll find you are wrong Mr Cabbage.
It's the same principle as buying drugs from an undercover officer. A tactic that has been approved by the Ivory Tower of the Supreme Court of Canada.
For a supposedly well educated pinky, you really know nothing of any significance.
Stick to tasteless pictures of radicals Muslims beheading our Nation's leader.
I'll get back to my right wing colouring book now. Pass the crayons please titium.
PluggyRug @ Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:53 pm
My kitties back from the vet, maybe she can lick Tritium into submission.
Maybe not, he's still radioactive.
PluggyRug @ Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:54 pm
ooples...
Hardy @ Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 pm
TheGup TheGup:
He is holding this vote in order to please the social conservatives from the West. This is his alliance: Quebec Bleus and Western Reform. He needs to keep both happy.
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Yet he still makes a mockery of progressive social values by holding a vote on them. It must be a fiscal policy.
That's what he said he would do on day 2 of the campaign.
He know's that there is no chance of it getting through a free vote, it's pure politics.
So your argument is that Harper's not acting like Bush because Harper is just pandering to political interests, but won't deliver the goods?
"Gay marriage ban headed for loss in Senate
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is headed toward certain defeat today despite a fresh appeal for passage by President Bush."
RUEZ @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:27 am
Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:
Thank you. I'm the best there is at what I do. 
IcedCap @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:07 am
TheGup TheGup:
Do you understand that he doesn't care?
He's simply holding this vote to shut up the westerners, unfortunately. The Quebec/Ontario/Atlantic Tories are socially liberal.
His cabinet is made up of many socially liberal conservatives. This includes Jean Pierre Blackburn, Jim Flaherty, Loyola Hearn, Tony Clement, Diane Finley, Jim Prentice, Maxime Bernier, Josee Verner, Lawrence Cannon, David Emerson, Rob Nicholson, and John Baird.
Harper has stacked his front bench, and his party, with Red Tories. Gay marriage will yet again pass, despite the beliefs of the grassroots.
He's simply holding this vote to shut up the westerners, unfortunately. The Quebec/Ontario/Atlantic Tories are socially liberal.
His cabinet is made up of many socially liberal conservatives. This includes Jean Pierre Blackburn, Jim Flaherty, Loyola Hearn, Tony Clement, Diane Finley, Jim Prentice, Maxime Bernier, Josee Verner, Lawrence Cannon, David Emerson, Rob Nicholson, and John Baird.
Harper has stacked his front bench, and his party, with Red Tories. Gay marriage will yet again pass, despite the beliefs of the grassroots.
Jim Flaherty, a socially liberal conservative? !!!!
LABBATTS50 @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:21 am
Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:
And here I am. I'm that monster under the bridge that tritium is scared shitless of.
Now, I go to work:
Tritum, you clearly have absolutely no grasp on that concept that we in the real world like to call "logic".
I would like to set you straight on some of the garbage rhetoric and non-ideas you're spewing here today. This is for your benefit, son. So sit down, put the duncecap back on, and let's put a little knowledge into you.
FIRST OFF, Bill C-47 was a Liberal creation.
SECONDLY, Your obvious view that terrorists should be allowed to act as they see fit in Canada until they carry out a successful attack is absolutely retarded. You've already demonstrated that you have no respect for human life, and the fact that you would allow terrorists to operate openly on Canadian soil only serves to further prove it.
THIRDLY, These "entrapment" circumstances you speak of are widely used by Canadian police in many such things as weapons stings, drug stings, and even prostitution stings. It's perfectly legal, and there are literally mountains upon mountains of precedents (and if you knew anything about the Canadian legal system -- which you don't -- you'd know this is what our system is based off of) to support this. It isn't entrapment. It's a sting. Learn the difference before you try to pontificate to us about something you clearly no nothing about.
FOURTH, These people have not had their human rights violated. This may come as a surprise to a sociopathic troglodyte such as yourself, but when acting in the defense of someone's would-be victims, it is nearly impossible to violate their human rights without tremendous abuses of the law and due process -- abuses which are nonexistent in this case.
Furthermore, I fucking CHALLENGE you to tell us what "Canadian Rights" were violated in this case.
FIFTH, You are clearly an uncultured, uncivilized, uneducated twit. You can't even begin to play the "educated elite" card, because you are nothing more than white trash, in EVERY sense of the word.
Now, Tritium, for the big finish: you, no matter what you may think, are not a liberal. Your beliefs don't fall anywhere under what those who believe in such things (personally, I don't) would classify as "left-wing" beliefs.
In fact, you are a fucking insult to them.
You are a fascist, pure and simple. You should be jumping in bed with that St. Lucifer dimwit.
Your website is garbage. I am proud to be "ruining" it by forcing it to open to ideas and opinons that are outside of the fascist little enclave you are so desperate to create there. I'm top dog on your site, and nothing short of banning me is ever going to change that -- and doing that will only prove me right.
You have no opinions. You have no ideas. You have no thoughts.
You have nothing but non-ideas and garbage rhetoric. I don't know why you even bother coming around this site, because even the most hopeless idealogues on this site completely and utterly outclass you. You look like a chump -- a little bitch -- everytime you post something here. You talk nothing but garbage, and never prove anything. You don't belong here. You don't deserve to be here.
You aren't in my league. You aren't in the league of anyone on this site. You should do yourself and the rest of us a massive fucking favor and not come around anymore. You're not wanted. I don't think I speak for myself alone when I say that you aren't even welcome here.
AND: don't even waste your time, mine, or anybody else's by even responding to this. We all know you're going to respond by posting the same old shit, and maybe even some photoshopped photo of Harper and Bush in some compromising situation. And for the record: your photoshop jobs suck. Put the mouse down, turn your computer off, and back away.
Now be a good little chickenshit, and run back to your site while I pull the walls down around you.
Now, I go to work:
Tritum, you clearly have absolutely no grasp on that concept that we in the real world like to call "logic".
I would like to set you straight on some of the garbage rhetoric and non-ideas you're spewing here today. This is for your benefit, son. So sit down, put the duncecap back on, and let's put a little knowledge into you.
FIRST OFF, Bill C-47 was a Liberal creation.
SECONDLY, Your obvious view that terrorists should be allowed to act as they see fit in Canada until they carry out a successful attack is absolutely retarded. You've already demonstrated that you have no respect for human life, and the fact that you would allow terrorists to operate openly on Canadian soil only serves to further prove it.
THIRDLY, These "entrapment" circumstances you speak of are widely used by Canadian police in many such things as weapons stings, drug stings, and even prostitution stings. It's perfectly legal, and there are literally mountains upon mountains of precedents (and if you knew anything about the Canadian legal system -- which you don't -- you'd know this is what our system is based off of) to support this. It isn't entrapment. It's a sting. Learn the difference before you try to pontificate to us about something you clearly no nothing about.
FOURTH, These people have not had their human rights violated. This may come as a surprise to a sociopathic troglodyte such as yourself, but when acting in the defense of someone's would-be victims, it is nearly impossible to violate their human rights without tremendous abuses of the law and due process -- abuses which are nonexistent in this case.
Furthermore, I fucking CHALLENGE you to tell us what "Canadian Rights" were violated in this case.
FIFTH, You are clearly an uncultured, uncivilized, uneducated twit. You can't even begin to play the "educated elite" card, because you are nothing more than white trash, in EVERY sense of the word.
Now, Tritium, for the big finish: you, no matter what you may think, are not a liberal. Your beliefs don't fall anywhere under what those who believe in such things (personally, I don't) would classify as "left-wing" beliefs.
In fact, you are a fucking insult to them.
You are a fascist, pure and simple. You should be jumping in bed with that St. Lucifer dimwit.
Your website is garbage. I am proud to be "ruining" it by forcing it to open to ideas and opinons that are outside of the fascist little enclave you are so desperate to create there. I'm top dog on your site, and nothing short of banning me is ever going to change that -- and doing that will only prove me right.
You have no opinions. You have no ideas. You have no thoughts.
You have nothing but non-ideas and garbage rhetoric. I don't know why you even bother coming around this site, because even the most hopeless idealogues on this site completely and utterly outclass you. You look like a chump -- a little bitch -- everytime you post something here. You talk nothing but garbage, and never prove anything. You don't belong here. You don't deserve to be here.
You aren't in my league. You aren't in the league of anyone on this site. You should do yourself and the rest of us a massive fucking favor and not come around anymore. You're not wanted. I don't think I speak for myself alone when I say that you aren't even welcome here.
AND: don't even waste your time, mine, or anybody else's by even responding to this. We all know you're going to respond by posting the same old shit, and maybe even some photoshopped photo of Harper and Bush in some compromising situation. And for the record: your photoshop jobs suck. Put the mouse down, turn your computer off, and back away.
Now be a good little chickenshit, and run back to your site while I pull the walls down around you.
Mr Ross I applaud you, this is the best schooling I have ever witnessed!!!!
TheGup @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:23 pm
...Where did my post go?
And, for once, IceOwl, you're right. Jim Flaherty is not for gay marriage. The rest stands, though. And I see you didn't bother to confront that.
And Hardy, I tried reading your post, but it was beyond me. What exactly were you trying to type? 
Hardy @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:53 pm
TheGup TheGup:
And Hardy, I tried reading your post, but it was beyond me.
Try again, it's not very difficult.
Topic: Is Harper acting like Bush?
Theories: Bush is a socon, and so is Harper (IceOwl)
Bush is a socon, but Harper is not, and merely pays lipservice to the socons for political reasons (you and EyeBrock)
I am just pointing out that US socons have been very disappointed by Bush. They voted for him, got nothing much that was on their agenda, then voted for him again, but what has he done for them?
Abortion is still legal.
Gay marriage is still not forbidden, and won't be.
Their kids still can't pray at school.
They wanted less immigration, they are getting the opposite.
He has done nothing substantial for them, his domestic policies have owed much more to neoliberalism than to social conservatism. Here's a typical US socon review of his presidency: Bush, GOP Congressional Leaders, RNC Chairman Mehlman To Christian/Conservative Values Voters: Drop Dead http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=200
So here's my theory: Bush is very wishy-washy about socon issues. He pays their ideas lipservice to collect socon votes, but he has never come through for them.
This is just what you are saying that Harper is doing.
If what you say is true, how does that make Harper different from Bush?
TheGup @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:14 pm
Harper is different then Bush because he believes in fiscal Conservatism. He believes that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. He believes the less governmen intervention, the better.
There are simply next to no parallels between Bush and Harper, and fear mongerers such as yourself simply feed off of this bull.
George W. Bush is not a conservative. He is a Liberal who likes to spend, spend, spend. If Harper were like Bush, he would not have my support in any way, shape, or form.
Also, Bush has tried to push through SoCon legislation.
IcedCap @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:29 pm
TheGup TheGup:
...
And, for once, IceOwl, you're right. Jim Flaherty is not for gay marriage. The rest stands, though. And I see you didn't bother to confront that.
...
And, for once, IceOwl, you're right. Jim Flaherty is not for gay marriage. The rest stands, though. And I see you didn't bother to confront that.
...
Well first of all I think you have me confused with another poster, second Flaherty is more than anti-gay marriage, he's anti-abortion and in the 2002 PC leadership campaign pretty much suggested making homelessness illegal, now I'd call that pretty socially conservative. Thirdly why would I confront you on anything else? its true Harper's cabinet is disproportionately loaded with Red Tories
Hardy @ Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:51 pm
TheGup TheGup:
Harper is different then Bush because he believes in fiscal Conservatism. He believes that tax cuts will stimulate the economy.
So does Bush, or at least he claims that is the reason for all those tax cuts.
TheGup TheGup:
He believes the less governmen intervention, the better.
Assuming that you mean less government intervention in the lives of Canadians (as opposed to just less intervention in business), I hope that you're right, that would be a non-neocon trait, and one which could find some favour across the politican spectrum, from anarchists to old-fashioned libertarian conservatives. Real minimalist government, which seeks, across the boards, to give the citizens as much freedom as is possible, is a concept with a lot of appeal. But I'm not sure that anything he has done so far reflects that. His stance on things like cannabis would seem to point in the opposite direction. It is not a philosophy which holds up well when applied inconsistently. We will see.
TheGup TheGup:
There are simply next to no parallels between Bush and Harper, and fear mongerers such as yourself simply feed off of this bull.
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 43,200 for "parallels between" Bush Harper.
Some would seem to disagree with your assertion.
And I'm not a "fear mongerer," I'm just pointing out that Bush hasn't given the socons what they want. Like many people, I do see parallels, but I'm not arguing that those parallels are encouraging, alarming, or even important. All I'm doing is pointing out that they exist.
TheGup TheGup:
George W. Bush is not a conservative.
Agreed, to some extent. He is not what people meant by "conservative" in past generations, although hardly any politician is anymore. I would call him a neocon and a neolib, with socon tendencies that never turn into real action (since they lack popular support and often run contrary to the interests of the businesses that pay for his party's campaigns).
TheGup TheGup:
He is a Liberal who likes to spend, spend, spend. If Harper were like Bush, he would not have my support in any way, shape, or form.
He is a neocon who likes to spend, spend, spend. Just because someone is fiscally irresponsible does not make them into a liberal.
TheGup TheGup:
Also, Bush has tried to push through SoCon legislation.
They both "try" when they know it will fail.
"The announcement that Parliament would be called again to a vote on gay marriage (later tempered by the announcement that MPs would first be asked if they care to reopen the divisive issue) was paralleled this week by the White House's decision to introduce a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages in the United States.
Because neither vote is expected to succeed, both political moves suggest they are more about distraction than action."
http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php ... une/7/ed2/
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 Next