[QUOTE BY= 4Canada] If you were going to make a lineup of people ready to sell Canada to the US what order would they be in? I may only use three, but four at the most. I thought of:<br /> <br /> 1. D'Aquino<br /> 2. Harper<br /> 3. Martin<br /> 4. Manley<br /> <br /> Anyone else's input would be appreciated. Thanks[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> harper, d'aquino, manley, martin. <br /> manley & martin seems to be the least dogmatic of the bunch. i think martin could be pretty harmless actually, since he tries to be everything to everybody, & therefore couldn't become a true puppet of the business community. harper & d'aquino have been far more consistent & religious/dogmatic with their economics talk.

   

Thanks for your reply NSay. I'm working on a poster and if space dosen't allow for 4 in the line would you leave Martin out? And you're obviously in agreement with the four I chose as well, just different order?

   

Actually I would put Harper first too, but Manley next, then D'Aquino and Martin. I don't think Martin wants to do it, but I think he is in too deep. The others I think are eager to do it.

   

I'd put D'Aquino at the top of the list personally, as you originally did--he speaks for big business, and politicians like Harper are therefore listening to him, not the other way around.<br /> <br /> I know you want to keep it short,but if you did a longer version you might want to include people like Tom Flanagan and maybe organizations like D'Aquino's and the Fraser Institute too.

   

I'd put Harper first but not as "Canadian Harper", i.e. the individual, but as the "Leader of the CPC". If it were Stronach, I would put her. It is what is pushing Harper to do what he is doing that is dangerous for Canada (and that include the Flanagans, the "think tank" people, etc.) <br /> <br /> Second would be D'Aquino certainly.<br /> <br /> I'm not certain about the third. Most probably Manley. He was there right beside D'Aquino for that "Task Force on the Future of North America".<br /> <br /> As for Martin, I am somewhat ambivalent. Although he does not appear to be doing much to protect Canada's sovereignty, I do not believe that he would knowingly "sell Canada to the US". My reason for thinking so is "his father". A little research on his father provided these snippets:<br /> <br /> 1) "Paul Martin’s father worked hard to secure [the red maple leaf] flag as our official sovereign symbol" [<a href="http://www.stevenfletcher.com/archives/000078.php?action=results&poll_ident=10">Hey I take information wherever available!</a>], and<br /> <br /> 2) "Paul Martin’s father was a longtime Cabinet minister known for liberal social policies [...] The elder Martin, who died in 1992, twice tried, but failed, to win the Liberal Party leadership during a 33-year political career in which he pushed national health insurance and pensions for the elderly and disabled." <a href="http://www.midwestpundits.com/EE/index.php/weblog/comments/canadas_nightmare_will_soon_end/"><i>Idem</i></a><br /> <br /> Bottom line: I doubt that Martin would do something, i.e. sell Canada to the US, which would have shamed and mortified his father. He seems to be extremely attached to his father and I don't see him doing anything that would be an insult to his memory.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

   

I think you are right about Martin.But if enough money is at stake,well go for it.<br /> I also think you are right about the list of four.<br /> Gang of four????<br /> Stronach makes we want to throw up.She has no substance of any kind.She will replace Harper,and that may be why Harper is trying a no confidence vote.He kows is political career is over.He also has no substance.Stronach can at least be marketed better through the media.Glamour does sale,and most of the public will accept her as their darling.She is as dangerous as Harper and the rest. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/evil.gif' alt='Evil'>

   

Thanks all,<br /> <br /> Susan, I would like to have a whole crowd of people because I know there is one, but my technological skills and my limited computer programming is going to make this a challenge for me no matter what I do. I'm working on it however in my spare time which is also limited right now.<br /> <br />

   

Martin has already been signing deals promoting his proposed " Deep Integration" with secret deals with the US at Waco Texas ,without any debate and without a majority government. We can expect him to speed the proccess up if he ever wins a clear majority. I wonder if they can be fought in court on the basis of his not having a majority government.<br /> Harper is truly dangerous , and is constantly criticising the Liberals for not snuggling up to Uncle Sam quickly or deeply enough. The Iraq war , which he advocated sending Canadians to ,is a good example of that.<br /> Does it have to be any clearer?<br /> Brent