Harper sworn in as Canada's 22nd PM

[zanner69]

I don't believe it - a report about Canada in an American newspaper!!!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-06-canada-harper_x.htm

TORONTO (AP) — Stephen Harper, who promises to mend Canada's frayed relations with the United States, was sworn in as the nation's 22nd prime minister Monday, marking the first time in more than 12 years that the Conservative Party will rule this traditionally liberal nation........

is Canada a traditionally liberal nation!!!!

 

[Denton]

Harper's cross-border appeal

Less than 5 hours into his term, Prime Minister Harper has received more good press in the U.S. than Martin did in his entire tenure...I wouldn't bank on it continuing indefinitely though.

 

[Denton]

progressive?

I'm not sure that "liberal" necessarily equals "progressive". The opposite of progressive would be regressive, not conservative. Perhaps in the minds of some Canadians liberal and progressive are synonymous, but, based on the latest election results, a number of Canadians would likely disagree.

 

[Dawgger]

Less than 5 hours into his term, Prime Minister Harper has received more good press in the U.S. than Martin did in his entire tenure...I wouldn't bank on it continuing indefinitely though.

Good let's buddy up to Bush!
Great pair,a liar and a hypocrit.

 

[red]

Mr Harper there is a call for you. Its the ethics comissioner?

 

[Denton]

Good let's buddy up to Bush!
Great pair,a liar and a hypocrit.

I have always thought that when you are dealing with people who are important in your life, regardless of how you feel about them, you should learn to communicate effectively. The barbs back and forth between the two countries accomplishes nothing, except for the fact that our reputation as Canadians for being polite and well-mannered does not reach the upper levels of our government.

Communication does not mean agreement and "buddying up" with someone. It simply means that you express yourself in a constructive fashion. While I occasionally like a good back and forth match of "wit" (or sarcastic banter), that is not a constructive means of communication.

As for being a hypocrite, everyone is a hypocrite: I have the freedom to say what I want, but only if you agree with it... just a thought...

 

[zanner69]

Mr Harper there is a call for you. Its the ethics comissioner?

yes, this is Mr. Harper's assistant - Paula Martin - Mr. Harper is down south with the leader of the free world playing golf - can I take a message???

 

[Dawgger]

I have always thought that when you are dealing with people who are important in your life, regardless of how you feel about them, you should learn to communicate effectively. The barbs back and forth between the two countries accomplishes nothing, except for the fact that our reputation as Canadians for being polite and well-mannered does not reach the upper levels of our government.

Communication does not mean agreement and "buddying up" with someone. It simply means that you express yourself in a constructive fashion. While I occasionally like a good back and forth match of "wit" (or sarcastic banter), that is not a constructive means of communication.

As for being a hypocrite, everyone is a hypocrite: I have the freedom to say what I want, but only if you agree with it... just a thought...

I take it you are saying the softwood lumber dispute will now end and Canadians will receive the money owed by the U.S. governement.There will be no more problems with our beef crossing the U.S border.Americans won't be going after our water supply, they won't be diverting water,clean for their own use or polluted into ours.I have no use Bush Cheney and Rumsfield, they are pathetic liars that are looking after their personal interests.I hope Harper doesn't follow their lead but I do believe he will buddy up to them and be used by them.

 

[Denton]

I take it you are saying the softwood lumber dispute will now end and Canadians will receive the money owed by the U.S. governement.There will be no more problems with our beef crossing the U.S border.Americans won't be going after our water supply, they won't be diverting water,clean for their own use or polluted into ours.I have no use Bush Cheney and Rumsfield, they are pathetic liars that are looking after their personal interests.I hope Harper doesn't follow their lead but I do believe he will buddy up to them and be used by them.

No, that is not what I am saying. A different approach does not always equal a different result. Maintaining a professional relationship with the U.S. will not compromise our values, rights and obligations; it will merely demonstrate that we are professional. One has to question how constructive it has been to call Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld pathetic liars as opposed to dealing with them openly about the issues you raise.

If I called someone those names, the dialogue would be nonexistent and the problems would continue to compound themselves. You can either focus on the medium or the message - but, as the CBC commercial says - the medium is the message.

 

[Dawgger]

No, that is not what I am saying. A different approach does not always equal a different result. Maintaining a professional relationship with the U.S. will not compromise our values, rights and obligations; it will merely demonstrate that we are professional. One has to question how constructive it has been to call Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld pathetic liars as opposed to dealing with them openly about the issues you raise.

If I called someone those names, the dialogue would be nonexistent and the problems would continue to compound themselves. You can either focus on the medium or the message - but, as the CBC commercial says - the medium is the message.

I agree my choice of words are not diplomatic or tactful.
I don't believe that group of politicians are going to look after anything but their own agendas.Their philosiphy appears to be we are infallible.we will damn well do what we want and if you don't like it tough. Diplomacy is going to have a tough time handling that attitude.I'd rather steer clear and hope a new regime comes in , in 2008 with a different approach.

 

[Denton]

I agree my choice of words are not diplomatic or tactful.
I don't believe that group of politicians are going to look after anything but their own agendas.Their philosiphy appears to be we are infallible.we will damn well do what we want and if you don't like it tough. Diplomacy is going to have a tough time handling that attitude.I'd rather steer clear and hope a new regime comes in , in 2008 with a different approach.

I agree that it is not easy - it usually isn't. The difficulty is that you never know what you will have to deal with when you have a new government in the States: Bush ran on a very xenophobic platform with the international community worried he would neglect the obligations established by previous administrations. After Sept. 11, Bush was forced to establish foreign policy that he was not prepared to set nor interested in setting. I guess if you force someone to do something they are not interested in nor have much skill in, they will not perform up to standards (please insert Indianapolis Colts joke here).

In addition, by the time November 2008 rolls around, we might have another new government here...only time will tell...

 

[Dawgger]

I agree that it is not easy - it usually isn't. The difficulty is that you never know what you will have to deal with when you have a new government in the States: Bush ran on a very xenophobic platform with the international community worried he would neglect the obligations established by previous administrations. After Sept. 11, Bush was forced to establish foreign policy that he was not prepared to set nor interested in setting.

Until Sept. 11 Bush was floundering.After the attacks he started to gain in popularity.If it had not been for Sept. 11 I don't believe he would have been reelected.
His foreign policy would be much better received if it was not based on a package of untruths.

 

[Denton]

Former President Clinton may have described it best when on David Letterman. To summarize, he said that when the cold war was on, the States was prepared for battle with the Soviets. Americans were easily embedded in the USSR and spies were well trained to get information. There was a flow of information from one part of the world to the other. This continued on for so long that the intelligence they received was relatively credible.

The situation, as it developed in the Middle East while President Clinton was in office, was vastly different. Small terrorist cells and bands of religious zealots made it difficult to infiltrate the groups and get reliable intelligence. As President Clinton described it, paraphrasing of course, 'Intelligence is more of an art than a science now'.

The same intel that the Americans used to enter Iraq, was the same intel that convinced the Brits to join in. Perhaps we can say that Bush is not the artist that others might have been, but the intelligence is flawed and after seeing what happened when Clinton failed to take care of Bin Laden (according to Clinton, one of the top security threats on his watch) did Bush have a choice?

Bush was in office a total length of 8+ months when Sept. 11 happened. To say that he was floundering might be more realistic if he had been in office for 2 1/2 years. He was starting to develop policy, both domestic and foreign, when it all had to be thrown out. It would have been difficult for anyone to revamp their policies on the fly after such a tragedy.

 

[rama putri]

is Canada a traditionally liberal nation!!!!

To Americans we are. And being a liberal in America is akin to being in AQ.

 

[zanner69]

To Americans we are. And being a liberal in America is akin to being in AQ.

lol - I would agree