x

[Hux]

I'm trying to find the Wall Street Journal article...I think Harper co-signed it or something...if you have any luck, flip it to me bro.

[d_rawk]

Absolutely.

[Hux]

One tip in finding these kind of nuggets is to do an advanced google search for .pdf files.

[AD]

The platform is ready. So I agree with everything you say, but if you're talking political strategy there are different ways of doing things.

That's good. Now they should share it... A lot of political strategy has to do with getting the message out, right? I guess they want to save some firepower for the debates and after-christmas funtimes.

Be interesting to see the platforms all unveiled at the same time, without any previous announcements. See how different / similar the candidates really are.

AD

[d_rawk]

One tip in finding these kind of nuggets is to do an advanced google search for .pdf files.

Good tip. I'll give that a go ... I'm surprised at how difficult it is to dig this puppy up.

Found some good quotes you might like, though:

Harper on USA

[d_rawk]

Phew. Luckily the University has an electronic archive of Wall Street Journals going back to 1984.

March 28, 2003

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.

[bONES]

to me, a focus on family structure is more important than community centres

why?

Canada is not made up entirely of families in the traditional sense

you support a re-vote on whether Canadians in same sex relationships can marry or not?!

i think the conservatives need to realize we Canadians are a mixed bag and all deserve to live happily in a healthy environment

my 2 cents

[Hux]

drawk...do you have the exact page that's on, and is that in a "letters to the editor" section or something?

Edited December 9, 2005 by Guest

[d_rawk]

Document types: Commentary

Publication title: Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Mar 28, 2003. pg. A.12

It was a letter, I think it was given sort of guest column prominence in the editorial/comments/letters section. It ran under the heading Canadians Stand With You

Ack. I think I just did something for a Liberal campaign!! :crazy:

[Birdy]

a government who would not support a war on Iraq

First' date=' the war is [i']in Iraq, not "on" Iraq. (Similarly, WW II was in France, not on France.)

Also, do you mean "a" (as in "any") war in Iraq, or just the current war? (To me, there may not be justification for the current war, but I'd like our government to be prepared and willing to send troops to Iraq [or anywhere else, for that matter] if there was a justified need.)

Aloha,

Brad

ahah oops.. war in iraq, on iraq..

the canadian government should support any war any where only so long as that war threatened the very way of life and individual freedoms of canadians.

[d_rawk]

I disagree, but do think that any military effort at the very least has to been gone into only under honest pretenses. Justifying something as a humanitarian intervention only after all the non-humanitarian arguments have failed, and after the war has begun, is ludicrous.

[Birdy]

to me, a focus on family structure is more important than community centres

why?

Canada is not made up entirely of families in the traditional sense

you support a re-vote on whether Canadians in same sex relationships can marry or not?!

i think the conservatives need to realize we Canadians are a mixed bag and all deserve to live happily in a healthy environment

my 2 cents

in terms of making families more responsible for raising their youth, yes focusing on families is WAY more important than community centres. i'd much rather have a parent teach his/her kid values than a volunteer.

i don't support a vote either way with regards to same sex marriages.. if a gay couple chooses to marry, MARRY!

[Birdy]

drawk- under what premises do you think we should go to war?

[d_rawk]

Similar premises as those that would have me jump into the fray if I was witness to a rape or a lynching.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Guest
expansion. drink is bad for the brain.

[Freeker]

When it is the right and logical choice, not when we are told or coerced into doing so.

People need to stop thinking about their own selfish needs and start thinking about the big global picture and vote accordingly. There's a lot more at stake than what your family or you community or you as an individual need. It's what we need for our future all of our future and if don't start making big steps instead of wasting all of our time getting bogged down in the little steps we're are never going to make it as a species, let alone as a country.

That said I don't know of the Liberals are the party to bet on, but until we get a viable third party option I'll stick with the masters of the status quo instead of going with the masters of the ten steps backwards.

[d_rawk]

I was thinking that you were the best thing since sliced bread until the third paragraph.

[Diggzz]

Everyone uses this devil we know vs. the devil we don't know arguement. How can you possibly know what the Conservatives will do, seeing as they haven't been in power for 15 years. I'm curious as to what people are basing this argument on (not trying to single anyone out, this argument has been made by many people at different times)

[d_rawk]

The statements and writings of Harper when he was with the NCC, and the statements and writings of various CPC candidates since then, mostly.

You're right, though, we can't know exactly how they would govern, especially in a minority situation where they were forced to seek support from the other parties (which is the most they could achieve). We do, however, have a pretty good record from the individuals themselves about how they would like to govern if given free reign (which is irrelevant, largely, under present circumstances).

[edit:] just to point out that they've never been in power. The PCs are dead, many of them are Liberals now, and the Reform/Alliance influence is vastly stronger in the new party.

[Diggzz]

Thanks for that explaination, if someone has put the time in to form an educated opinion based on facts (which you have done) I have no problem with using that argument. My fear is for the apathetic voters who are voting based on the devil we know vs. devil we don't know argument.

[Freeker]

Sorry D, I just know that without the Liberals being in a minority position, they'd strive to do as little as possible, except get rich(same as every other party in power) that's why i prefer them in a minority postion, forces them to do good for all of us, which they have, no complaints there except for all the legislation the died due to the election that they never had any intention of putting though just paraded out at the last minute so they could say "Oh we were going to do this but now we can't because of the election" I hate it when any gov't pulls this kind of con, they should be working their asses off every day to pass legislation to better our lives instead of hording hot button issues just to kill them to make the other guy look bad for calling an election, waste of our time. But i guess that's politics

[Hux]

Ack. I think I just did something for a Liberal campaign!!

No my friend, you helped one of the 70% of Canadians opposed to a right-wing government!!!

[d_rawk]

Freeker: Then I retract my prior statement. We are on the exact same page about that, and, lo and behold, you in fact are the best thing since sliced bread. Liberal min. with an increase of NDP seats is what I would like to see.

Hux: Well, that does make me feel better. I might take a shower, though, just in case.

[Hux]

drawk, what riding are you voting NDP in?

[Diggzz]

Sorry D, I just know that without the Liberals being in a minority position, they'd strive to do as little as possible, except get rich(same as every other party in power) that's why i prefer them in a minority postion, forces them to do good for all of us, which they have, no complaints there except for all the legislation the died due to the election that they never had any intention of putting though just paraded out at the last minute so they could say "Oh we were going to do this but now we can't because of the election" I hate it when any gov't pulls this kind of con, they should be working their asses off every day to pass legislation to better our lives instead of hording hot button issues just to kill them to make the other guy look bad for calling an election, waste of our time. But i guess that's politics

I agree 100% with everything you say, that is what is making this election decision so difficult, I support a lot of the Libs positions, I am also very disillusioned by the lies/wastefullness and obvious attempts at vote buying that, as you said, have no hope in hell of ever seeing the light of day.

[d_rawk]

Ha. I have a choice of ridings. The best that I can offer them in either is a buck seventy five.

If your man would just put his money where his mouth is about 'democratic deficit' and electoral reform ...

But, whatever.