How will Harper cheat? I don't really think he needs to cheat quite frankly.

I've never heard of this. link?

Don't worry Darth, it's only a matter of time before our glorious comrade Harper extends his iron first to the south.

Next time Harper goes to the White house it won't be for lumber tariff negotiations.

Already indicate he has a majority of voters, and why is that, well the liberals have this whole carbon tax idea, not a plan, but an idea that they want to implement but it's a work in progress. Part of the problem is businesses have to pay more for vehicles, but get discounts if they buy environmentally friendly vehicles, which in my case ain't happening because they don't make hybrid trucks that can pull the weight I need to pull, so I would be stuck paying more, as well they don't exactly state what is environmentally friendly vehicles and there aren't enough alternatives really. So pay more for gas with this tax, more for vehicle registration, more for various other products, when I am already stretched out for money at the business end. No I don't think I can vote liberals. The NDP's really don't have a chance nor does the Green party, the PQ ain't going to get in EVER. So what's left the Tories.

The liberals more or less have lost the West with this Carbon Tax scheme. BC already has a provincial Carbon tax, now they want to add a federal tax, Alberta would be heavily taxed because of the oil sands and those companies would be taxed far too much for them to vote liberal, same goes for Saskatchewan. Oh with that said Newfoundland would be taxed heavily because they are now investing alot into offshore drilling. The Tories aren't getting a Majority by stealing it, they are getting it because the liberals are out of touch with reality at this moment in time. Want to help with pollution, get Canada to start investing into alternative fuels.

Queen and Central beside the old peel memorial hospital, I think that's brampton west.

WTF? A Harper majority gov't would be a disaster for Canada in the vein of George W. Bush. The only sane thing to do is vote against the Conservatives so that they remain a minority gov't at best. We know they're going to win, so let's minimize the damage.

Anybody but Conservative.

I live in Harper's riding and I will be not be voting Conservative. Even if I totally agreed with their platform, I still wouldn't vote for them because of the way they are Americanizing our electoral process. I will probably vote Liberal this election.

Wow, Kevin.  Great job at ignoring the rest of everything I wrote.  *clap*  His government has proceed just like a majority because he has confidence votes on almost every piece of legisaltion he tables esuring that the weak Liberals and Bloc vote in avour in order to avoid an election!  Only majority governments get so much of their own legislation passed... that is untill Harper had his minority.  And the gay marriage card has been played: He held a vote in parliament over the matter and gay marriage sustained!  Am I imaging that?

(And the Bloc government bit was not totally serious.  The time for them to actually have formed a government has passed, they're waning in support.  Of course, they still get a serious percentage of the vote and if enough votes were to fall from the Liberals and Conservatives to the Green or NDP, they could have a slim chance at a minority, which would be soundly defeated.  It would be impossible for the Bloc to pass a confidence motion.  It's speculation anyhow.  I didn't mean to imply that the Bloc could actually form a government.)

Go back and reread my posts.  I made some additions.

Stephen Harper on transparency and freedom of the press:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he'll no longer give news conferences for the national media, after a dispute led a number of journalists to walk away from an event when he refused to take their questions. 

Speaking to A-Channel in London, Ont., Harper said "unfortunately the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government."

"They don't ask questions at my press conferences now. We'll just take the message out on the road. There's lots of media who do want to ask questions and hear what the government is doing." 

Since becoming prime minister in January, Harper has had a testy relationship with the national media in Ottawa.  His staff has tried to manage news conferences by saying they will decide which reporters get to ask questions. 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/24/harper05242006.html [/i]

Stephen Harper on environmental conservation and the existence of a Big Science conspiracy:

[i]Harper and the Conservative government criticized the Kyoto Accord on measures to fight against global warming, saying that the economy would be crippled if Canada was forced to meet the Accord's timetable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, Harper wrote a letter to members of the former Canadian Alliance party, mentioning that the Accord is a "socialist conspiracy" and questioned sciences that are proving global warming and in a meeting with other Commonwealth countries in Uganda commented that Kyoto was a mistake that should not be repeated. ^{[1] [2]}

^{h]ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Harper_government#cite_note-0[/i}

Harper Government on bald assertions and fear mongering:

[i]On April 19, 2007, Baird told the Canadian Senate environmental committee that respecting the Kyoto Accord would have a negative impact on the economic citing that Canada would return to a recession similar to the early 1980s while gas and natural gas prices would skyrocket despite a United Nations report that said that the impact would be minimal. ^{[14] [15]}

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Harper_government#cite_note-0 [/i]}

Harper Government on 'Cleaning the Air':

Details of the Clean Air Act were revealed on October 19, 2006 by Harper along with Environment Minister Rona Ambrose and Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon. Its main plan was to reduce greenhouse emissions at about 45-65% of the 2003 levels. The goal was set for the year 2050 while a decrease of greenhouse emissions would be noticed in 2020. There were also regulations set for vehicle fuel consumption for 2011, while new measures would be set for industries starting in 2010. Finally, oil companies will have to reduce gas emissions for each barrel produced. However, companies can increase their production until 2020.^[18].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Harper_government#cite_note-0

Harper Government on the importance of discussing global warming:

Harper canceled a planned meeting on environment with European Union members in Helsinki, Finland, a meeting in which he was expecting to condemn the Kyoto Accord. Critics cited that Harper canceled its meeting to avoid the criticism from EU officials. Harper's director of communications cited that his legislation agenda forced him to withdraw from the meeting. ^[32] Furthermore, Ambrose attended a two-week November 2006 UN summit meeting in Nairobi, Kenya on the issue of the Kyoto Accord and it targets. Opposition members have claimed that her presence was an embarrassment for Canada. ^[33].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Harper_government#cite_note-0[/i]

Harper Government on equality:

[i]During the 2006 election campaign, Stephen Harper promised a free vote to revisit the issue of same-sex marriage which had been legalized in 2005 by the previous government. The vote took place on December 7, 2006: the government bill to change the status quo was rejected 175-123. Afterwards Harper told the media that he now considered the issue to be closed and that he would not pursue further legislation on the matter.^{[20] [21]}

There were also plans to pass a law that would protect "freedom of religious expression", a law interpreted by some as a shield for opponents of same-sex marriage. The government cut funding to various social programs and festivals, some of which were related to the gay community such as Montreal's Black and Blue festival, one of the biggest gay festivals in Canada.^[22][23] The Harper government also reduced spending for women's advocacy work on the status of women in the country.^[24]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_Harper_government#Social_policy[/i]}

Harper Government on freedom of expression:

[i]In late-February 2008, the government announced its intention on amending the Income Tax Act which would suspend any tax credits to any film or television production which would include content judging too offensive to the general public. The Canadian Family Action Coalition had pushed the federal government for the funding cuts and is supported by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party citing that governments should be careful about putting taxpayers money for movies with too much sexual content. ^[36] The bill was met with opposition by the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists citing it has grave implication to the actors while calling it morally offensive to modern Canadian society. ^[37] Canadian Actress Sarah Polley, added that the bill would amount to "censorship" and that the definition of offensive is "extremely vague and dangerous to be using". ^[38] MP Jim Abbott cited that "the bill does nothing to obstruct filmmakers -- it just stops the government from footing bills for films that don't fall in line with Canadians' morals". A similar legislation was unanimously passed in 2003. ^[39]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_Harper_government#Social_policy[/i]}

Harper Government on pro-choice:

[i]In early 2008, Conservative MP Ken Epp tabled private member's bill C-484 in which harming a fetus would constitute a crime. Medical specialists cited that bill would open the door for an abortion ban. The bill passed first reading in March 2008 with the supported of the first two parties. ^[42]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Harper_government[/i]}

So, Thom? Care to revisit what you said about Harper [i]not being anti-science or anti-science? We can also go ahead and chalk-up 'anti-freedom of speech' too, I guess.

You're ignorant of both:

A) The process

and

B) Current events

Both of these standards have been jeopardized by the Harper government, and both are at serious risk the longer his term continues.

Harper can pass whatever he wants, the Supreme court can over rule his decision if the people demand it or if it violates the charter of rights of Canada, Harper CANNOT dismiss the Supreme court, no party can.

I didn't write those citations, did I?

If you don't like facts I guess you don't like facts, but don't give me bullshit about how I'm just making him out to be something he's not.

Untrue. Check my citations.

Correct. Check my citations and look for a trend.

...So I backed my claims up. Can you do the same? Or are you just another pot-toking gas-brain who lives in a perpetual state of this gag-inducing 'Canadian spirit', typically involving blissful ignorance and skirt around on our tippy-toes politeness?

. A final source of cases is the referral power of the federal government. In such cases, the Supreme Court is required to give an opinion on questions referred to it by the Governor-in-Council (cabinet). However, in many cases, including the most recent Same-Sex Reference, the Court has declined to answer a question from the Cabinet. In that case, the Court said it would not decide if same-sex marriages were required by the Charter of Rights, because the government had announced it would change the law regardless of its opinion, and subsequently did.

The Supreme Court thus performs a unique function. It can be asked by the Governor-in-Council to hear references considering important questions of law. Such referrals may concern the constitutionality or interpretation of federal or provincial legislation, or the division of powers between federal and provincial levels of government. Any point of law may be referred in this manner. However, the court is not often called upon to hear references. When it is, the opinion on the question referred is often of national importance; one recent example concerns the constitutionality of Same-sex marriage. References have been used to re-examine criminal convictions that have concerned the country as in the cases of David Milgaard and Stephen Truscott.

Constitutional questions may, of course, also be raised in the normal case of appeals involving individual litigants, governments, government agencies or crown corporations. In such cases the federal and provincial governments must be notified of any constitutional questions and may intervene to submit a brief and attend oral argument at the court. Usually the other governments are given the right to argue their case in the Court, although on rare occasions this has been curtailed and prevented by order of one of the Court's judges.

Since same sex marrige is more or less a safe, since those from the Gay community would pretty much launch a lawsuit against the goverment, and take up with human rights counsel, which more or less makes the issue dead for the tories or any other government. That's my evidence, where is yours again that harper would throw out the any supreme court decisions?

Kevin has shown his true colours he is a I am right no matter what mentality, he is completely wrong on this subject and has no fucking clue how the government, the courts or the system in Canada works. His whole concept of a police state is such a stretch that it makes him look stupid. He thinks he is superior over everyone, and hey let him be, I have no use for such stupidity and ignorance, I personally have no respect for him.

void, never mind.

Shaitian, that wasn't cool posting something that downloads malware like that.

Yeah no they never formed a government, they were elected in Ontario, with Bob Rae...and we all know that was the worst thing ever.

Next time you see him bitch-slap him and say it's from me.

I didn't say, 'I'm right!', now did I? I said, 'Here's the Goddamn citations backing-up my claims.'

At least Thom had the decency to address them rather than simply attacking me (I hold to my claim that Harper is making-out scientific principles to be part of a conspirator plot. I'm sorry, but you can't just 'explain away' him talking about Global Warming & Kyoto directly using the terms, 'Communist Conspiracy plot').

Thom: You know damn well that the Liberals and NDP had to fight tooth and nail to modify the Conservative 2006 'Clean Air' proposal to it's current state. Showing the most recent form of the bill is being disingeniune; that is not what Harper was looking for, ever. It's what he had to settle for.

My mistake, it was the PC's I was thinking of. That whole collapse and mix up with the Reforms and everything had my mind working on the wrong track. Apologies.

I did back up my claims that Harper cannot change the same sex laws or the definition of marriage anymore because of the supreme court, that he cannot have a police state, simply because he does not want to talk to the media (which is merely exaggeration on your part) so the insults stands, your ignorant on how the Canadian court system and governmental system works, and how the laws are changed, can be changed and how it all works. Even if he has a majority he cannot change some sex laws, he has the right not to talk to the media and be hypocritical about his stand on a see through government (come on tell me no one saw this one coming? It was an election promise) and your the one that threw the insults first, not me.