Ok. It's Friday and I've had a bad month this week. And I no longer have a dog to kick so I think I'll take it out on L'il Stevie instead.
The world according to Stephen Harper:
And I think the real problem that we're facing already is that the government doesn't accept that it got a minority. - Stephen Harper
Really? Most of us had that figured out ohhh about January 24th.
But I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people. - Stephen Harper
And just when were you planning on putting that second belief into practice?
I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. ... I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions. - Stephen Harper
Note to General Rick Hillier: I wouldn't be making too many plans for all that money you think you are getting. At least not until it actually shows up. That's what you get for making a public statement without approval of the PMO.
If you want to be a government in a minority Parliament, you have to work with other people. - Stephen Harper
Guess that includes getting the Blocheads to help dismantle the country?
The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade. - Stephen Harper
[Referring originally to the invasion of Iraq but insert Bush policy of your choice.] Gee, what a bold vision for the country - advance to the rear and go unnoticed at the back of George Bush's parade. Someone should tell Stevie that being American asswipe is not a bold vision for Canada's future.
Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it. - Stephen Harper
Take that you elitist eastern liberals and don't even think about commenting on hierarchy and elitism without approval from my office.
Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy. - Stephen Harper
And give me a few more months as prime minister and I'll make sure it's dead.
Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion. - Stephen Harper
More bold vision for the country from Stephen Duceppe or is that Gilles Harper? It's getting so hard to tell them apart.
And a bonus from Stockwell Doris Day.
Judges must be free from political intervention or intimidation. - Stockwell Day
Our Parliamentary system has simply failed to meet the challenge of judicial activism. - Stockwell Day
Ok Doris. Which is it?
[...]"Harper: I'd describe it more as arrogant. And I think the real problem that we're facing already is that the government doesn't accept that it got a minority. The Liberals think the natural state of affairs is a Liberal majority - they're not happy about this, they don't accept it and quite frankly, they're going to look for any opportunity to call an election. I can tell you that our party and I'm sure Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton from our conversations want Parliament to work - it's in the interests of the Opposition for this Parliament to go on for a while and be effective. It is only the government that wants to end this state of affairs and go to have another election.
Solomon: Are you suggesting that the Liberals are baiting you to call a confidence vote because they want another election and you don't want another election?
Harper: I think the government's strategy will be to have an election as soon as possible. Maybe not this fall, but I think the government wants an election.
Solomon: And you don't!
Harper: They can't stand having a minority. We accept that it's a minority - for all the other parties we've been in a kind of relatively powerless position for a long time. I think we're looking forward to the opportunity of having some influence for the next few years. And I'm happy to do that and continue to take the time to build and organize my party which, as you know, is relatively new. I think it's only the government that just can't stand this situation and wants out of it." [...]
Isn't it amazing how the meaning changes when you put the quote back into context?
And "I think the government's strategy will be to have an election as soon as possible."
Boy...that strategy REALLY worked, didn't it? Heh.
"I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. ... I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions"
Hmmmmmmm...had to go back to May 23, 1995 for that one. Relevant to May of 2006? Questionable.
Motivation for posting .. desparation.
But I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people. - Stephen Harper
And just when were you planning on putting that second belief into practice?
Well it's not like he plans to put the first belief into action either. He's already created a new accountability bureacracy and he's got Doris running around the country trying to sell Canadians on a whole new spy agency.
I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible.
Paul Martin
Gee, this business of digging up stale quotes is really quite interesting...
Oh lookee! Small government Harper just created another agency.
Harper also announced Friday an extra $300 million in settlement funding over two years, which will include the setting up of an agency to assess and recognize foreign credentials.
Robert McClelland:
Rob, you really have to start paying more attention to the issues. Under the Harper plan, the new agency is being funded to the tune of $18 million per year for two years.
Under Martin's campaign promise for the 2006 election, The Libs were going to commit $260 million over six years for the EXACT same function.
Difference in pricing? Perhaps Harper doesn't feel the need to kick back funds to his own party and award cushy advertising contracts to his friends...that tends to reduce the cost somewhat.
And if you're not in favour of the concept, I guess you're proud of the fact that Canada has the best-educated taxi drivers and busboys in the world. Personally, I prefer them being qualified doctors and engineers, what they have been trained to do.
"[Y]our country [the USA], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."
Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.
Will he continue this line once the jails are full of them?
Dana:
You may wish to have a look at the number of Clinton people subject of successful criminal prosecutions thus far; about 40+ so far, I believe. (and I liked Clinton, thought he was a pretty good Prez, met him once, thought he was a very personal guy).
And what the hell does US partisan politics have to do with Harper anyway? Or are you one of the "black helicopter" people?
Do we need to hear anymore from Bruce?
I'm only asking because there's some very sardonic commentary coming out the American blogospere addressing the fact that the major players in the control of public discourse in the last few years have not only been intellectually dishonest, but actual petty liars, petty and major thiefs and pathetic and hypocritical subtance abusers. Not only that, but these people have made a point of savaging "liberals" arguing in good faith with lies, disingenousness, numbing verbosity and actual outings of anonymous commenters.
Most people consider that kind of discussion sadistic and cruel, and I know too many people who've retreated from internet debate because they think the whole thing is a "hate fest."
Is Bruce a manifestation of this? Is it peculiar to him? Is it organised? Was the CPC influenced by this?
Ti-Guy:
Are you so pathetically paranoid that you think that I represent some type of "organized" vast right wing conspiracy?
Seems to me that you have been given pretty much free range over at SDA. Because SOME people believe that "debate" is represented by a civil exchange of opposing views. That's the definition.
And if you are attributing the following characteristic to me: "petty liars, petty and major thiefs and pathetic and hypocritical subtance abusers", I really think you ought to resume taking your meds. You couldn't be more mistaken.
I have commented here, from time to time, and, with the exception of you, have been treated with courtesy and respect and I have responded in kind.
I respect the fact that different people have differing views. Just because someone has opinions that differ from mine on some issues does not make them anything but good and honourable people who care passionately about issues and express their legitimate views. That's the nature of life, pal. Get used to it. I appreciate that the hosts of this blog have undertaken the time, effort (and money) to put forth a forum for discussion...good on them.
And as for the implication that I am some sort of "American" satan of the blogosphere....the weather here in Vancouver is lovely, thank you.
Suck it up Ti-Guy...the ARE people in the world who do not share your every viewpoint. That's why Baskins & Robbins developed 31 flavours...
Thanks, Brucie. You told me all I needed to know.
Gee, Ti-Guy:
When intelligent and informed thought fails you, you resort to mocking someone's name. That's mature. Unlike you, I use my real name. Unlike you, I use my real email address.
Yessirree, ti-guy, you're a brave guy.
Now why don't you don your tinfoil hat, start your taxi, and get to work...
When intelligent and informed thought fails you, you resort to mocking someone's name. That's mature. Unlike you, I use my real name. Unlike you, I use my real email address.
Yessirree, ti-guy, you're a brave guy.
Now why don't you don your tinfoil hat, start your taxi, and get to work...
This is awful; appalling, rude, crass, classist and vulgar. Cruel and sadistic, as far as I'm concerned. Bruce, you've already proved to me that you lie blithely and,now you've descended into this childish taunting and name-calling. You, frankly, are a bully and a sadist. Women should be wary around you.
I'm starting to wonder whether, when the creaky edifice of the corrupt Republican machine comes crashing down, we'll be surprised that many of the people we've been interacting with on the Internet are members of crime syndicates.
Ti-guy:
Idiot
"This is awful; appalling, rude, crass, classist and vulgar. Cruel and sadistic, as far as I'm concerned. Bruce, you've already proved to me that you lie blithely and,now you've descended into this childish taunting and name-calling. You, frankly, are a bully and a sadist. Women should be wary around you.
I'm starting to wonder whether, when the creaky edifice of the corrupt Republican machine comes crashing down, we'll be surprised that many of the people we've been interacting with on the Internet are members of crime syndicates."
Well, thanks for this Ti-guy...you've suceeded in demonstrating to anyone reading this thread that you are apparently certifiable...
Might I suggest...take a deep breath...resume your meds,and resume posting when you are at least cinsidered to be lucid...
Bruce, if you held your beliefs honestly and rationally, you'd have ignored me long ago.
Ti-Guy and Bruce
It's clearly long past time for me to step in here since we are each responsible for our own threads. Play nice kids! Gawd knows our civility fails from time to time and none of is above a good rant and/or a healthy dose of snark but we make an effort to stay at a post sandbox level. Everyone has people who can manage to push all the wrong buttons and clearly you two both have that capability with each other. Either get back to something close to civil or ignore each other or I'll give you both a time out.
Personally I think that Bruce needs to come up with something better than "BUT TEH LIBS DID IT TOO!!"
Because didn't Harper campaign on doing things differently?
Harper campaigned on many things; accountability being one of the foremost. Look where we are now: Emerson is still dodging his "constituents" after selling Canada down the river; Fortier is hiding behind his secretary; Harper is threatening to sue the entire Liberal party; Canada has apparently gone from internationally reknowned and trusted peacekeepers to warmongers for Bush's losing war; the First Nations are still last; Quebec is having visions of grandeur as it's own country; the "taxpayers" have been handed a pig in a poke for a "feel good" (until next tax season) budget; the environment can go hang, Ambrose is on a taxpayer-funded junket to kick the pegs out from under Kyoto for Bush; and all is right in Harper's world. He can sell out to Bush, Big Oil and his Religion without a care in the world.
As long as no one goes back to refer to what he said before he was PM. The Conservatives will lather and foam against any criticism of Beloved Leader by trying to smear the commenter.
What we need now is some real accountability, and some real opposition before Harper's words come true: "You won't recognize Canada when I am done with it."
People have to stop bickering back and forth with the Cons and instead work together to show Canada and the world that we haven't completely about-faced on our values.
Brucie sweetie, you're going to have to name some of those supposedly convicted Clinton officials.
Here let me help:
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with Whitewater:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with Travel Office allegations:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with alleged abuse of FBI files:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with Lewinsky matter:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel investigation of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel investigation of Labor Secretary Alexis Herman:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel investigation of Americorps director Eli Siegal:
0
Clinton administration officials indicted and/or convicted in connection with the
Independent Counsel investigation of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown:
0 (Investigation abandoned upon Brown’s death in nation’s service)
Clinton Administration officials convicted in connection with the Independent Counsel investigation of Agriculture Secretary Michael Espy:
0 (Espy acquitted of all charges. Judge sharply rebukes Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz for
bringing case in the first place.)
Other:
HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for misstating to the F.B.I.
the amount of money he gave his girlfriend;
Assistant Attorney-General Webster Hubbell convicted of embezzling funds from Rose Law Firm
before his federal appointment; that is, stealing from his law partners, including Hillary Rodham Clinton;
Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, a political rival of Bill Clinton’s, convicted on charges involving
local television licensing, and nothing at all to do with Clinton;
Jim and Susan McDougal, convicted of crimes in Whitewater matter. In summation to the court,
Independent Counsel declares that President Clinton is innocent of wrongdoing.
Locusta emersonia
I strongly agree with you. This is a liberal/progressive blog serving that community. I consider arguing with committed right wingers to be less productive and enjoyable than just about anything including sticking your dick in a blender. I really am not interested in anything they have to say because I have already heard all of it at some time over the last 40 years and it quickly becomes "deja vu all over again". It really wouldn't hurt my feelings if they ignored us as much as I ignore them.
That said, unlike some of the right wing blogs, we are not going to ban someone for simply disagreeing with us (not that that is what you were suggesting). We have banned right wingers for being unmitigated trolls, consistently commenting off topic and/or being abusive and will do so if necessary in the future. But not for merely being irritating or disagreeing with us.
If someone doesn't want to get into a long, mind numbing and ultimately meaningless exchange with a winger, don't engage them in the first place - as difficult as that sometimes is. If you feel you have to engage them, keep it civil. The community as a whole is pretty effective at dealing with them if they go over the line. Getting into name calling exchanges does nothing to make us look any better than them. If you want to get involved in some community building exchanges, that can also be done privately. Our email addresses are on the main page and we are open to discussions.
I understand, Mahigan. Thanks.
Ti-Guy - No problem. You are always welcome. I would be far more concerned if people were not passionate about the future of the country. Bruce wouldn't agree with us on much but I suspect he would agree that it is better to have someone who cares enough about the country to fight with you about its future [even if he's dead wrong;-)] than someone who doesn't give a damn. See you soon.
Actually, Mahigan, I agree with your sentiments about caring for our country. I spent 30 years in the service of our country, encountering some degree of personal liabilities and their consequences, but would happily do it again.
I would also like to apologize to you and your blog(sters) for my lapse, in letting the other party succeed in "pressing my buttons" to the point that I posted expressions that were both demeaning to myself and disrespectful to others reading the postings.
It won't happen again.
"The government ... will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."
I think it is a strained interpretation to suggest that Harper approves of a “back of the parade role”. I read the quote as claiming past decisions have put the government behind such that although it is finally joining, it is a lap behind. He says the joining as a good thing but the placement a bad thing, in other words.
“Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it”
I strongly suspect this particular quote pre-dates Harper becoming a Tory, i.e. before the merger with the PCs. So it is a bit misleading to suggest that he is speaking for an organization he is a part of. That said, one could make the case that he became something of a “floor crossing” by merging with the PCs.