Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Harper’s motto: Making money is more important then saving the environment.

You can see Harper’s modus operandi on the environment with this trip to Latin America. Look where he intends to pay a visit to while down there:

The most controversial stop on the trip could come Wednesday in Santiago, Chile. There, Harper will visit the offices of Barrick Gold, whose proposed Pascua Lama gold and silver mine in the Andes on the Chile-Argentine border has become a rallying point for critics of multinational mining operations. Reports that the company’s explorations have eroded the size of three glaciers by more than half have some Chilean lawmakers calling for a halt to planned operations and a probe into the environmental effects of Barrick’s activities.

How much would anyone like to bet that the visit to Barrick’s offices isn’t going to be to lecture them on having more responsible environmental activities? It’ll more likely involve some pompous speech about what a great company Barrick is for helping to invest Canadian money and develop Canadian trade internationally.

Deceivin’ Stephen is more concerned about the ability to make a buck then to make a bit less and be environmental stewards. You see that in Green Sham Plans Version 1 and 2 up here, and you’ll likely see it in Chile down there.


20 comments to Harper’s motto: Making money is more important then saving the environment.

  • Scary Conservative

    Oh goody! The old hand over bin laden bit. What good would it have done to hand over bin laden to a muslim third country for trial? Would Iran have been a good choice? Or should they have given the taliban all their information sources in exchange?
    Should we have shut down WWII if Hitler had offered to hand over Himmler? Or was there perhaps some kind of organisation in place that was part of the problem as well?

    India seems to be doing quite well as a democracy. Odd how the former members of the British Empire seem to have an advantage over those that weren't.

    Did you notice that the democratically elected president of Afganistan has asked us to stay and help protect the democracy and protect the school children?

    But back to your concern over dollars. Have you come up with a number yet that you are willing to spend to help little girls get to go to school without being shot or beheaded?
    You seemed very concerned that the military effort in Afganistan would bankrupt Canada.
    Is that still part of your argument as to why we should pull out and let 8 year old girls fight it out with the taliban over whether they should learn to read or not?
    What is the 'progressive' position on that?

  • "Ever been to India? Malaysia?"

    I can believe you mean that to be a serious point. To begin with India revolted against British rule….and Malaysia….well best not to even mention that country.

    The other mitigation against your point is that this is the twenty-first century. The people we mean to subject to our rule possess shoulder held and portable missles that can shoot down our helocopters and lay waste to our mobile divisions.

    Glenn Fitzgerald.

  • "You put politics ahead of human rights."

    So I take it you think that our attempt to change another society through military force—sending soldiers there to kill any one who opposes us—- serves as a good example of human rights?

    Oh, I forgot, the use of tanks and guns to build democracy is only the most recent rationalization of this idiotic war. I'm forgetting the bogus reason for the war the very corrupt White House initially gave.

    The Americans claimed they had to invade to prevent the Taliban from sheltering bin-Laden—-even though the Taliban offered to hand over bin-Laden directly to the U.S just before the U.S started bombing the country.  Yea, there's a good reason the U.S came up with the democracy building excuse for its attack.

    And by the way, I would never suggest that the massive U.S oil facilities and investments near the Caspian Sea which require a pipeline through Afghanistan to be practical has anything to do with the real reason for the U.S involvement there.
    No, that suggestion would make me a conspiracy theorist.

    The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.  Scary conservative, indeed.

    Glenn Fitzgerald.

  • Scary Conservative

    No, what I’m saying is that they will choose a democratic system if that’s what they want.

    How are they going to do that when the minority Taliban will kill them if they try?

    You put politics ahead of human rights. The right thing to do is help these people get out from under the thumbs of the 7th century homicidal maniacs. But George Bush and Stephen Harper have already shown their support for the women and children of Afganistan so  since your political agenda is more important than human rights, you side with the Taliban. Your default position is opposite that of your political rivals.
    One of my co-workers is a very strong Liberal supporter, we have had many good arguments about politics.
    When Stephen Harper was elected he said he hoped Harper would be the best prime minister in Canadian history because Canada needs a good prime minister and good government.
    That is putting the issues ahead of politics.
    You are prepared to sacrifice the lives and livelyhoods of the Afgan people because you don't like Stephen Harper.
    That is pathetic and disgusting.
    Almost as disgusting as your argument about dollars being more important to you than the welfare of Afgan school girls.
    So how many tax dollars are you prepared to spend to help the little girls of Afganistan be protected so they can go to school?

    My point is that the West WILL NOT succeed in forcing a foreign culture to adapt our political system at the point of a gun.
    Ever been to India? Malaysia?
    If the little brown people   from non western countries are incompatible with our political system, why do so many of them emigrate to the United States?
    Why do they risk their lives to get there?

  • Scary Conservative:

    “Ah, that explains it, so what you are saying is the little brown men over there aren’t capable of grasping democracy.”

    No, what I’m saying is that they will choose a democratic system if that’s what they want.

    The issue concerns the idiotic logic of fake conservatives such as yourself who want to turn the U.S and Canada into global social workers. The issue also concerns the idiotic and contradictory “logic” (if that’s what you want to call it) of trying to force a people to be, “free.”


    My point is that the West WILL NOT succeed in forcing a foreign culture to adapt our political system at the point of a gun.

    Learn to interpret argument, guy. And stop trying to imitate Homer Simpson. And maybe listen to Fox news less.

    Glenn Fitzgerald.

  • Be brave. Be a real man. And after you're finished with Afghanistan and your still alive, maybe you can help bankrupt our country by liberating all those other countries in the name of feminism or democracy—-or some other cause.

    Be brave. Be a real man.? And after you’re finished with Afghanistan and your still alive, maybe you can help bankrupt our country by liberating all those other countries in the name of feminism or democracy—-or some other cause.

    Oh now it’s all about the dollars and cents of it?
    You’re not prepared to put the education of little girls above your own greed for a more luxurious lifestyle?
    You want to pull the soldiers, who passionately believe in helping the Afgan children and women, becuse it might cost you a few bucks at tax time?
    I’m not suprised, I’ve seen this for years,? modern socialism has morphed from something honourable into? a culture of greed and selfishness.
    Here’s a question, what is the maximum dollar figure you are personally prepared to sacrifice so that even one little Afgan girl can go to school?
    Now close this page and run away and hide and try not to think about such things.

  • Scary Conservative

    Ah, that explains it, so what you are saying is the little brown men over there aren't capable of grasping democracy.
    Now get out your moonbat song sheet and look over the multiculturalism and anti-racism chapters again.
    Have you considered that the Taliban are not the majority? That they are imposing their 7th century culture on the majority by beating and killing the weaker members of the Afgan society?
    But why should it suprise anyone that the left support the Taliban? They supported Stalin while he was starving the Ukranians, they supported Mao while  he killed millions, they still support Castro who throws aids patients in jail.
    Why are you bitching about those killed accidentally by air strikes and not bitching about those women and children killed deliberately by the Taliban by homicide bombs?
    Why aren't you bitching about the little girls who were shot and killed leaving their school the other day?
    Where is your outrage over that?
    If you learned to think logically instead of emotionally that would be a big step forward. Of course you would also need the courage to actually look at the inconsistencies in your thought processes as well.
     And that lack of courage is why it won't happen.
    Also wallowing in your hatred is too satisfying.
    P.J. O'Rourke said it well:
    ""At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."

  • "I thought they were in favour of protecting women and gay rights."

    Yea man, that's real smart. Let's send our troops to kill the husbands and brothers of Afghanistan's women so that we can liberate those women from their cultural oppression. 

    We'll just accept Harper's glorious wisdom that another society's women will want to pay that sort of price for the cultural advancement of their society.

    And Now that U.S reliance on air-power seems to be generating massive civilian casualties maybe we can just keep fighting until women in Afghanistan have no men to enslave them.

    Trying to force a democratic system on a foreign culture through armed force is also real smart, isn't it? There's a reason the majority of Canadians, conservatives and liberals,  don't support Canada's war effort in Afghanistan.

    Most Canadians possess a little common sense, even if they lack any historical perspective of the conflict.

    Glenn Fitzgerald.

  • Hey, Scary Conservative, you wouldn't be scary if you'd just go over and fight the good fight in Afghanistan and put your own body on the line.
    It's pretty easy send other people out to die, isn't it?

    Be brave. Be a real man.  And after you're finished with Afghanistan and your still alive, maybe you can help bankrupt our country by liberating all those other countries in the name of feminism or democracy—-or some other cause.

    Glenn Fitzgerald.

  • Dog

    Google: we are all Hizbollah now.

  • Scary Conservative

    Have you seen this idiot attack a certain black women who is hunted by the jihadists?
    He doesn't seem to take that line with leftys who appear on his show, they get the fawning softball questions.
    Why would that be unless he has sided with the jihadists?

  • Scary Conservative

    Oh? So why do Jack Layton and his 'you've got to be kidding' NDP party want us to withdraw the Canadian troops from Afganistan? I thought they were in favour of protecting women and gay rights.
    You can show your stupidity by parroting his 'we want to negotiate with them' line. What will happen to the rights of women and little girls in Afganistan then? How many  homosexuals will be stoned to death in the first week? How many school girls will be shot?
    Why is the lefts favorite fashion statement a Che t-shirt, a thug who incidentally was a mass murderer and set up Castro's  goon squads?
    Why do you on the left have idiots like Rosie O'Donuts claim that fire won't melt steel in her wild attempts to discredit the US government, who is fighting the jihadists? You remember them don't you? They are the ones that kill gays like Rosie.
    Are you so blind or stupid that you don't see who you are in bed with?
    Read this, if you are not afraid to think about the phenonenom of leftys and islamists cooperating.
    Quote"Putting a million people on to the streets of London is not, after all, small potatoes. The steering committee of the Marxist–Islamist alliance consists of 33 members — 18 from myriad hard-Left groups, three from the radical wing of the Labour party, eight from the ranks of the radical Islamists and four leftist ecologists (also known as ‘Watermelons’ —green outside, red inside). The chairman is Andrew Murray, a leading light in the British Communist party; co-chair is Muhammad Aslam Ijaz, of the London Council of Mosques. Among the major players from the Left are Lindsey German, who resigned as editor of the Socialist Workers’ party newspaper to become convenor of the Stop the War coalition; John Rees, also of the SWP, and, of course, George Galloway. Indeed, the first proud progeny of the alliance is Galloway’s Respect party, which fought and won the London seat of Bethnal Green and Bow, with its substantial Muslim electorate. Points of potential disagreement between the hard Left and radical Islam — democracy, human rights, xenophobia, free-expression, feminism, homosexuality, abortion, among many others — would seem to pose insuperable barriers to the union. Not so. The hurdles have been neatly vaulted in the interest of mutual hatreds: America, Israel, globalisation, capitalism and imperialism. Anti-Semitism is never far from the surface. "Unquote

  • "You touch on the eerie silence of Western leftist feminists on this issue,"

    Except it was Western Feminists making documentaries and reporting from within Afghanistan that exposed the brutal behaviour of the Taliban over 10 years ago when most of the West – including those high minded Conservatives who today claim we battle in Afghanistan for women's rights – were either silent on the subject or openly engaging with the Taliban in order to get a gas pipeline through their country.

    It was Western Feminists who were reporting on and encouraging the women  of  Saudi Arabia to rebel by driving cars.

    Might I also remind you that the Women of Iran have fought against the fundamentalist Islamic nature of the revolution to the point where the Mullahs can barely contain the flaunting of the laws.

    Might I remind you that the only secular Arab country in the Middle East where women were equal to men was invaded and destroyed by the US.

    So how about you drop this thinly veiled  attack on Islam in general and this blatant attack on feminists – who have most certainly NOT been silent about repression in Muslim countries – and piss off. Pretending that somehow all people on the "left" are Communists betrays how little you think. It6 betrays how unbeleievabley stupid your really are.

    Come back when you learn to read, you slack-jawed idiot.

  • To Scary Conservative:

    I find your post near to completely incomprehensible. I have no idea who your post is addressed to or how it ties in with Scott's blog entry.

    Glenn Fitzgerald.

  • Scary Conservative

    Read this, it explains the victim beggar complex that has molded your way of thought.
    You don't know it, but this is what causes liberals to be so illogical in their thoughts and arguments.
    That is why you are so upset over something your imagination has produced.
    There are several reasons why I voted for Steven Harper, most having to do with fiscal issues and disappointment in Paul Martin’s leadership. However one not mentioned within my immediate blogging circle is that most conservative governments temporarily disrupt the victim-beggar complex. The socialist equivalent of the military-industrial complex, the victim beggar complex essentially writes its own tickets by proclaiming impending doom for specific minority groups in hopes of obtaining government money.

    Here's another guy who can explain the reason for such gaping holes in liberal arguments and why they rely on emotional thinking instead of logic.
    Dr. Theodore Dalrymple explains the silence of the feminists. You discuss the horrifying suffering that women endure under the vicious and sadistic structures of Islam’s gender apartheid. You touch on the eerie silence of Western leftist feminists on this issue, noting “Where two pieties – feminism and multi-culturalism – come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence.”   To be sure, the Left has long posed as a great champion of women’s rights, gay rights, minority rights, democratic rights etc. Yet today, it has reached out in solidarity with the most fascistic women-hating, gay-hating, minority-hating and democracy hating force on the face of the earth – Islamism.   What gives? It’s really nothing new though is it? (i.e. the Left’s political pilgrimages to communist gulags etc.)   Dalrymple: I think the problem here is one of a desired self-image. Tolerance is the greatest moral virtue and broadmindedness the greatest intellectual one. Moreover, no decent person can be other than a feminist. People therefore want to be both multiculturalist and feminist. But multiculturalism and feminism obviously clash; therefore, you avoid the necessity to give up one or the other merely by disregarding the phenomena. How you feel about yourself is more important to you than the state of the world.
    It all makes sense once you think about it:

      The Left have become ideological orphans after the Cold War, or perhaps we should call them ideological mercenaries. Although the viable economic alternative to capitalism didn’t work out, their hatred for this system never subsided, it merely transformed into other forms. Multiculturalism is just a different word for “divide and conquer,” pitting various ethnic and cultural groups against each other and destroying the coherence of Western society from within.

    At the very least, the people living in the former Communist countries knew and admitted that they were taking part in a gigantic social experiment, and that the media and the authorities were serving them propaganda to shore up support for this project. Yet in the supposedly free West, we are taking part in a gigantic social experiment of Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration every bit as radical, utopian and potentially dangerous as Communism, seeking to transform our entire society from top to bottom, and still we refuse to even acknowledge that this is going on.

  • paul

    Do you think its easy making priorities?

  • Scott quotes his source:

    "There, Harper will visit the offices of Barrick Gold, whose proposed Pascua Lama gold and silver mine in the Andes on the Chile-Argentine border has become a rallying point for critics of multinational mining operations.”

    Scott, how do you know that Harper hasn't gone down to visit Barrick Gold in order to warn them of their folly in the mine operations which threaten the environment? Now don't laugh (although I couldn't suppress a chuckle at my own words).

    Your assumption that he's made the trip for the motives which you clearly imply—that is to support Barrik's endeavor—is entirely unfounded.  And even if as you say his visit will, ”involve some pompous speech about what a great company Barrick is," you never can tell what private warnings he might have ushered to the company's directors.

    That being said, I agree that he's likely gone to support the cause of Big Business and its agenda to rape the planet.  After all, he's tied in with U.S neoconservatives about whom history will likely render the none-too-pleasant verdict of: "ruthless and without conscience."

    But if you use weak arguments to attack a government—weak arguments which have already been compromised by their own spurious assumptions, then the government's apologists will simply throw those arguments back in your face. 

    Anyway, keep up the good work with this blog. I have visited thousands of Canadian blogs and your blog is one of the very best. In fact, your blog as a source of information and comment far outstrips in quality the first two you list as the one's you visit daily. 

    Glenn Fitzgerald.

  • …any good comments today Scott?…..seems 0nly the Cons are writing back.. At least I agree with your article .

  • Scott, are you high?

    Since when is it the Prime Minister’s job to travel to foreign countries to chew out Canadian companies? Would Stephane Dion have travelled to Chile, hugged a tree and given Barrick Gold a lecture?

    If the answer to that question is yes…the Liberals are in more trouble than I thought…

    Sounds like something Jack Layton or Lizzie May, you know, people who arent running for Prime Minister, would do…

  • Well ya see, unlike  your ilk, we conservatives place a higher value on creating new & protecting existing jobs than we do on saving trees & dirt. Three cheers to Harper for celebrating a successful Canadian company

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.