Harper won Canada zero

whats going to happen to Canada now that Harper got in?
>
>
>
"A picture says 31,752,842 words"

 

Well, Harper told the US ambassador straight off the bat (who disagreed with Canada shoring up its ownership of the Arctic) that it will dictate its own policy, and not take directives from Washington.

 

well since it's a minority government ,harper won't be able to sell this country to the americans ..he will need the assent of the other parties for any law that he wants to pass

 

JESUS TAP DANCING CHRIST

Yes the Americans figured with Harper they'd be able to dictate the policy, and he's already told them to get stuffed. Not antagonistically, but yes, he said "dude, this is our country, we'll run it thanks."

That whole "Harper is Bush's bitch" thing was a lie started by the drug dealing thief Martin. GIVE IT A REST ALREADY

 

Will Harper implement all of Justice Gomery's recommendations?

Martin had promised to implement every single one of Gomery's recommendations. We shall see.

 

Well, duh. Gomery was working for Martin at the time.

 

Tories tend to forget who the Natural Ruling Party of Canada is, to their own loss.

 

Who is the Natural Ruling Party of Canada?

 

The Liberals. Since the formation of the Liberal Party (post-McKenzie), Canada has tended to only vote in Conservatives for short terms after long periods of Liberal dominance. Even two term runs (ie: Mulroney) are rare, especially when measured against the 22-years of say McKenzie-King.

 

well let's see here:

one is a priviliged moron, who despite his coke snorting, booze pounding ways, baught his way through an Ivy league school only to fail miserably with a series of bussiness ventures. Following the realisation he would never make it in the bussiness world, and having wasted enough of daddies cash, he took up the family bussiness of political curruption with the titles of Govenor and President handed to him on a silver platter. Once in power he returned the favour with a degree of nepotism never seen in Washington, starting a war to give all his fellow privillaged, neo-con buddies a big fat pay-off, all the while spending his country into catastrophic dept.

the other comes from a middle-class background, from an early age showed an interest in political and economic issues, first (believe it or not) as a young admirer of Trudeau. Moving out west he put himself through University to focuss on his passion for economic theory. Disillusioned with a lack of understanding the west recieved in Ottawa became the brainchild of the Reform party, then retreated from politics to spend more time developing his own ideas, free of political hold-backs. Shortly after re-entering politics he managed to re-unite the right, prooving he was a cunning mediator and the most qualified to take lead of the newly fromed party.

Anyone else see a few differences?

I'm not a conservitive myself, but even I have to respect the man for being something that most politicians arn't: a self made man of intelligence and ideas, not wealth and power, and for that I'm willing to give him a chance

 

who the fuck are you even talking about?

it's unclear.

 

the first desrciption would be bush, the second is harper

sorry, should have made it clear I was responding to the OP

 

Well done, yovo. That's the FIRST intelligent analysis of Harper I've read here.

 

Yeah, but thats just to rebuff his critics that his policy will come from washington.

Canada can do little to stop the passage of ships through international waters.

 

You guys are like those global warming nuts:

If it gets warmer: see, global warming said it would do that.
If it gets colder: see, global warming said it would do that.

 

Seriously, what is Canada going to do to stop the US(and other nations) from going through the NW passage? Fire a torpedo at our subs? Sink our oil tankers?

Its purely show. However, any canadian PM would have said/done the same thing. This is an ongoing issue.

Is this not like the first real statement he has made since becoming PM designate?

 

Does the idea of signing away our sovereignty through NAFTA and then spending billions of dollars protecting it in the artic seem a little nutty to anybody else?

 

What did we sign away with NAFTA again? I keep forgetting these conspiracy theories.

 

Its not a conspiracy theory. Unlike the GATT, NAFTA and the WTO provide tribunals which can override sovereign decisions, and allow corporations to sue governments for "lost profit". We flat out lost economic sovereignty.

Tomorrow, after this pitcher of beer wears off, I'll find you some sources.

 

We signed away control over our resources.