[bootlegga]

Tman1 Tman1:

Tough talk, Mr. Harper, but I want to see him follow through not the likes of which of his promises of Ice breakers, Arctic patrol ships, etc. For over 25 years this country has been the destination of choice for queue-jumpers and criminals, while genuine, downtrodden refugees who seek a better life legally wait their turn in line. It's time to fix this but.....this is Canada and only in Canada.

Maybe he could talk tough if he hadn't set up tents and picnic tables and invited them ashore!

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Takes a tough stance??? Are you freakin kidding me?? A tough stance would have been sending a destroyer out to intercept them and if they refused to alter course, fire a few rounds across their bow. Getting "tough" once they've been allowed to land is nothing but bullshit bluster.

If he really wanted to act tough, he should have made the ship anchor in the harbour (or offshore) for a couple of days.

[andyt]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Benn Benn:

Regina Regina:

You need to be a Canadian Citizen to vote in the federal election.

True, but not to donate to election campaigns!

Ahh... very true. Nor do you need to be a citizen to influence voting on an ethnic level.

And it only takes three years to become a citizen - gotta think ahead and all.

[Bacardi4206]

Correct me if I am wrong, however if majority of Canadian citizens are FOR a harsher change in the direction Harper claims he wants to go. Wouldn't that put more support for them than removing support? Sure he will probally lose Tamil voters but hes taking a stance that happens most of Canada supports. Wouldn't he be gaining there votes in placement.

[andyt]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Correct me if I am wrong, however if majority of Canadian citizens are FOR a harsher change in the direction Harper claims he wants to go. Wouldn't that put more support for them than removing support? Sure he will probally lose Tamil voters but hes taking a stance that happens most of Canada supports. Wouldn't he be gaining there votes in placement.

The votes he would likely gain are in ridings where he's already assured of winning. Whereas the votes he would lose (in immigrant ridings) are ones where he might pick up some seats if he's seen as benefiting those people. That's the diff between popular sentiment and individual ridings, and why govts can form a majority without a majority of the popular vote, or vice versa.

[EyeBrock]

The Tories won't get any seats in Toronto. They know that. Toronto will not be a pivotal area for any potential Tory majority.

It is as safe as it gets for the Libs and NDP. This is basic stuff andy.

Pandering to immigration cheats that will end up Toronto is a waste of 'pandering' for the Tories.

The Tories have as much chance of getting a seat in Toronto as Elizabeth May has in a Newfoundland sealing town.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The Tories won't get any seats in Toronto. They know that. Toronto will not be a pivotal area for any potential Tory majority.

It is as safe as it gets for the Libs and NDP. This is basic stuff andy.

Pandering to immigration cheats that will end up Toronto is a waste of 'pandering' for the Tories.

The Tories have as much chance of getting a seat in Toronto as Elizabeth May has in a Newfoundland sealing town.

If Harper only appeals to his western base, he'll never get a majority. In fact if the Libs ever get their act together, he won't even be PM - Vancouver doesn't go like the rest of the west. He seems to have given up pandering to Quebec as a lost cause that just pisses off his base. So he's trying to find an issue that will bring enough Canadians to vote for him - so far without success. I'm not sure the tough on immigration schtick will do it either, tho it certainly gets my attention. If I didn't believe that a majority Reformacon govt would run riot over social programs, I'd be in their tent by now.

[EyeBrock]

You don't get this stuff at all eh andy?