What did we do? Harper Majority!!

[ansutherland]

Well, I wish I knew where to go from here but it seems we just disagree. I could go on and on. I could reference studies. I could use stats....all of which would be very time consuming. I have argued a lot with a lot of people....it's something I like to do, but I know when there is just no point. If I could mathematically prove that my position were right and yours wrong, you would still disagree. Christopher Hitchens made the point that a truely objective person is able to accept a reality that they find personally objectionable; something few are able to do.

Ask yourself if anything could prove you wrong or change your mind? If the answer is no, then you believe it on faith and faith alone.

 

[JLM]

The reason we are so surprised and some upset is the fact that democracy had its say.
People went to the polls and voted their choice. At the end of the day voters chose to go
with Harper and so be it. The NDP is now the official opposition because the concerns
of many tuned into what Jack Layton was saying. In southern Ontario the vote split and
the Liberals were the stumbling block not the NDP. Had the percentage of Liberals
voted for Jack and I mean 5% or a little more the outcome would have been different, so
Be it. By sticking with Ignatieff they lost the seat for the Liberals and elected their worst
nightmare. That is democracy.
I don't shudder at a Harper Majority, he has to govern but now he hast to listen and the
reason I say that is, Harper won all those seats with 39% and some split vote riding's in
Ontario. The NDP had 30% and a chance to win more in the future. Face it for some
time to come the Liberals are dead and I mean dead. What is on the horizon? The
right wing of the Liberal Party may in fact defect to the Conservatives, and the left and or
the center left will begin to look to the NDP as their new home.
The fact is Mr Harper, and Mr Layton, may not agree on much but together they might just
find a way to make some things work, and the first new avenue might be to promote a
little respect for the system and the political view of the country. We all assume that things
will not go at all well and its to soon to speculate on that. Jack Layton will make a very
different opposition leader than the wimpy Liberal machine, that didn't have any teeth to
bear.
Remember both leaders have to be careful as these go rounds will be a rehearsal for the
next election down the road. There are regional problems for both, there are local issues
and a national opinion of both parties to develop. Perhaps two perceptions will be
dispelled. One that the liberal fear mongering was bogus and the unfounded fears about
the NDP will be realized. We have some exciting times ahead

Just one point that I'd question..............you think the Liberals are dead for awhile, they still have 34 seats, the Cons didn't stay dead for very long after being down to two seats. I say if Harper screws up badly, they could be right back next election. Liberals seem to have "nine lives", Trudeau came in with a landslide in '68 and then he damn near lost it the next election only to come right back 2 years later and then lost it to Joe Clark and bounced right back 8 months later.

 

[karrie]

When I say argue, I mean to say that one has to present a logically consistent rebuke. To say that "voting is my right" is not a fit argument. We differ on what we think it means to argue.


I'm ok with that. Though I have a lot still to learn, I fear it's nothing compared to the average voter.

Likewise, stating 'experts agree' without backing it up with links or references, is not discussion or debate, merely argument.

 

[ansutherland]

Likewise, stating 'experts agree' without backing it up with links or references, is not discussion or debate, merely argument.

Well if all I have to do is provide references to win then great.....you may as well concede defeat while I gather the references.

Do you really want references? If so, to which of my claims? Would you like it in Chicago, APA or MLA format?

Likewise, stating 'experts agree' without backing it up with links or references, is not discussion or debate, merely argument.

I think it would qualify as discussion, argument and debate.....without references.

 

[TenPenny]

VAT/HST - No one knows why it is suppose to be a good thing yet everyone wants it scrapped. Seems to me you should know why 29 or 30 OECD countries have it before you want it scrapped. (for that matter, you should know what the OECD is)

'Everyone' wants the HST scrapped? So that would include Harper, and yourself, not to mention every other person.

I would like to point out that not everyone wants it scrapped.

You've lost 15 marks for that demonstrably false claim.

 

[Icarus27k]

This is a sad day for Canada...

Or should I say the 51th State of America

Why Canada why?

Harper ruled his minority like a dictator

Now with a majority he can pass any law he likes

You reap what you sow

Also, don't worry. I'll be just as happy in a few years when the NDP has their own majority government.

Yeah... people here aren't going to like me saying that.

 

[Goober]

When I say argue, I mean to say that one has to present a logically consistent rebuke. To say that "voting is my right" is not a fit argument. We differ on what we think it means to argue.


I'm ok with that. Though I have a lot still to learn, I fear it's nothing compared to the average voter.

It may not be a fit argument for you. So as mentioned before what does a person have to do - to meet - to have the ability to vote. What is the test. What qualifications.

What other "Rights" would in your opinion have to also meet these same standards. Standards you have yet to provide us with.

Why do you consider yourself better than the average voter - What percentile of the eligible population would you place yourself in??? - What topics are you so well informed on compared to the average voter - What polices as well. What evidence do you have to support that claim?


Meanwhile hijacking the thread is trolling. So as mentioned earlier - Start a thread - Put your obviously immense capabilities to paper - Wow us with your insight.

Meanwhile - I and others wait to be Wowed.

 

[ansutherland]

'Everyone' wants the HST scrapped? So that would include Harper, and yourself, not to mention every other person.

I would like to point out that not everyone wants it scrapped.

You've lost 15 marks for that demonstrably false claim.

You are a literalist I see. What must you think when someone says they are so hungry they could eat a horse? Do you really think I meant every human in Canada is against the HST? Maybe you thought I meant every human on Earth? Maybe every sentien being in the universe? My point was lost on you I see. I was making the point that a very large ( I do not mean large in terms of volume or weight) number of people want to change something they don't understand.

 

[karrie]

Well if all I have to do is provide references to win then great.....you may as well concede defeat while I gather the references.

Do you really want references? If so, to which of my claims? Would you like it in Chicago, APA or MLA format?


I think it would qualify as discussion, argument and debate.....without references.

No, you're right, because any study would be merely the product of intelelctuals attempting to explain why they should run the show. I could probably show you lots of studies on how the world would be more peaceful if we could just strip people of their rights... it wouldn't make it right.

 

[TenPenny]

You are a literalist I see. What must you think when someone says they are so hungry they could eat a horse? Do you really think I meant every human in Canada is against the HST? Maybe you thought I meant every human on Earth? Maybe every sentien being in the universe? My point was lost on you I see. I was making the point that a very large ( I do not mean large in terms of volume or weight) number of people want to change something they don't understand.

What percentage of voting people in Canada are against the HST?

You want people to refute your arguments, with facts and reasons, but you feel free to use hyperbole and random assertions not backed up by any facts to make your arguments.

Joe 90 (as we called him) wouldn't have you on my high school's debating team past the first week. You haven't presented anything more than random opinions.

Feel free to come up with facts, otherwise, you're looking at a straight D.

 

[JLM]

'Everyone' wants the HST scrapped? So that would include Harper, and yourself, not to mention every other person.

I would like to point out that not everyone wants it scrapped.

You've lost 15 marks for that demonstrably false claim.

This is getting to be a very debatable subject. No one LIKES the H.S.T. I'm sure. But if we scrap it, what other tax is going to pop up? Actually income tax rates have dropped considerably over the past 20 years, although we all bitch about paying that too. Obviously there is no single "correct" tax as everyone's circumstances are different. At least with H.S.T. we have a choice as to whether we pay it or not, if you don't like paying it don't buy products upon which it is imposed. A lot of people choose to avoid paying income tax by not going to work. One thing for certain..............if you want government services you pay tax.

 

[ansutherland]

It may not be a fit argument for you. So as mentioned before what does a person have to do - to meet - to have the ability to vote. What is the test. What qualifications.

What other "Rights" would in your opinion have to also meet these same standards. Standards you have yet to provide us with.

Why do you consider yourself better than the average voter - What percentile of the eligible population would you place yourself in??? - What topics are you so well informed on compared to the average voter - What polices as well. What evidence do you have to support that claim?


Meanwhile hijacking the thread is trolling. So as mentioned earlier - Start a thread - Put your obviously immense capabilities to paper - Wow us with your insight.

Meanwhile - I and others wait to be Wowed.

You make the mistake in thinking that I claim to have the requisite knowledge to vote. I never said that. Maybe I do, maybe I don't.....it's a possible reality I can come to terms with. Maybe you have the required ability....maybe you don't. A simple test could go a long way in determining that just as a simple test clarifies your ability to drive a car.

Given the debate about issues that I already addressed (global warming for example) do I really need to give more example of issues that a good number of voters know nothing about? No matter what issues I bring up it's not enough and I'm told I'm wrong. I am told to provide references as though it would make even the slightest difference. Have you ever argued with someone who believes something totally insane ( I assume you're thinking I'm insane)? No matter what you tell them, if they believe the moon landing never happened, good luck. If they believe that big foot is real, good luck. If they believe that 9/11 was the result of a controlled explosion, good luck.

Again, I will restate my question from earlier. Could any one piece of evidence convince you that you are perhaps wrong? If not, then you believe what you believe on faith.

 

[SLM]

This is getting to be a very debatable subject. No one LIKES the H.S.T. I'm sure. But if we scrap it, what other tax is going to pop up? Actually income tax rates have dropped considerably over the past 20 years, although we all bitch about paying that too. Obviously there is no single "correct" tax as everyone's circumstances are different. At least with H.S.T. we have a choice as to whether we pay it or not, if you don't like paying it don't buy products upon which it is imposed. A lot of people choose to avoid paying income tax by not going to work. One thing for certain..............if you want government services you pay tax.

Correct, we want a road paved, we pay the tax. We want our kids to go to school, we pay the tax.

Unless money starts growing on trees. (While I remain hopeful, I admit this is unlikely ).

Actually, since so many say we are a consumer driven society, perhaps the consumption tax is the way to go after all. At least we do have some choices then.

 

[Goober]

You make the mistake in thinking that I claim to have the requisite knowledge to vote. I never said that. Maybe I do, maybe I don't.....it's a possible reality I can come to terms with. Maybe you have the required ability....maybe you don't. A simple test could go a long way in determining that just as a simple test clarifies your ability to drive a car.

Given the debate about issues that I already addressed (global warming for example) do I really need to give more example of issues that a good number of voters know nothing about? No matter what issues I bring up it's not enough and I'm told I'm wrong. I am told to provide references as though it would make even the slightest difference. Have you ever argued with someone who believes something totally insane ( I assume you're thinking I'm insane)? No matter what you tell them, if they believe the moon landing never happened, good luck. If they believe that big foot is real, good luck. If they believe that 9/11 was the result of a controlled explosion, good luck.

Again, I will restate my question from earlier. Could any one piece of evidence convince you that you are perhaps wrong? If not, then you believe what you believe on faith.

No - I just check out which one is lying the least - Ever considered that.

 

[JLM]

You make the mistake in thinking that I claim to have the requisite knowledge to vote. I never said that. Maybe I do, maybe I don't.....it's a possible reality I can come to terms with. Maybe you have the required ability....maybe you don't. A simple test could go a long way in determining that just as a simple test clarifies your ability to drive a car.

Given the debate about issues that I already addressed (global warming for example) do I really need to give more example of issues that a good number of voters know nothing about? No matter what issues I bring up it's not enough and I'm told I'm wrong. I am told to provide references as though it would make even the slightest difference. Have you ever argued with someone who believes something totally insane ( I assume you're thinking I'm insane)? No matter what you tell them, if they believe the moon landing never happened, good luck. If they believe that big foot is real, good luck. If they believe that 9/11 was the result of a controlled explosion, good luck.

Again, I will restate my question from earlier. Could any one piece of evidence convince you that you are perhaps wrong? If not, then you believe what you believe on faith.

Is anyone 100% wrong, is anyone 100% right? A "simple test" you say to determine voting capability? Who would you suggest compiles the test (besides you)? I have a much simpler solution.............Just stick with letting the person choose to vote or not to vote. One thing for sure if you set a test you are going to have a lot of pissed off people who score 49%. It just AIN'T worth it.

 

[ansutherland]

What percentage of voting people in Canada are against the HST?

You want people to refute your arguments, with facts and reasons, but you feel free to use hyperbole and random assertions not backed up by any facts to make your arguments.

Joe 90 (as we called him) wouldn't have you on my high school's debating team past the first week. You haven't presented anything more than random opinions.

Feel free to come up with facts, otherwise, you're looking at a straight D.

Such a double standard. Because everyone here is against my position, it's assumed I'm wrong and that I am the only one who should provide evidence. Where is yours? You have all be bantering back and fourth long before I got here. Were you all providing evidence with references? Of my claims that you find disagreeable, which of those do you want evidence for?

 

[Goober]

Such a double standard. Because everyone here is against my position, it's assumed I'm wrong and that I am the only one who should provide evidence. Where is yours? You have all be bantering back and fourth long before I got here. Were you all providing evidence with references? Of my claims that you find disagreeable, which of those do you want evidence for?

You're sounding so Trollsome.

 

[ansutherland]

Is anyone 100% wrong, is anyone 100% right? A "simple test" you say to determine voting capability? Who would you suggest compiles the test (besides you)? I have a much simpler solution.............Just stick with letting the person choose to vote or not to vote. One thing for sure if you set a test you are going to have a lot of pissed off people who score 49%. It just AIN'T worth it.

Who should decide what goes on a driving test? A history test? A Chemistry test? If you can't show a basic understanding of economics, history, science and the parliamentary system, then you are not going to be able to make a good educated decision. This is not a partisan concept. I do not say this to disallow those who support a particular party over another. All the parties have certain ideas that are just plain stupid.

Will a test make the system fool proof? No. Will it help wittle down the morons who think we live on a flat earth (you can substitute whatever dumb idea you want)? Ya , it'll help.

 

[Goober]

Who should decide what goes on a driving test? A history test? A Chemistry test? If you can't show a basic understanding of economics, history, science and the parliamentary system, then you are not going to be able to make a good educated decision. This is not a partisan concept. I do not say this to disallow those who support a particular party over another. All the parties have certain ideas that are just plain stupid.

Will a test make the system fool proof? No. Will it help wittle down the morons who think we live on a flat earth (you can substitute whatever dumb idea you want)? Ya , it'll help.

Then start a thread - list the whatevers & whatifs but please Fuk off till then.

 

[karrie]

Such a double standard. Because everyone here is against my position, it's assumed I'm wrong and that I am the only one who should provide evidence. Where is yours? You have all be bantering back and fourth long before I got here. Were you all providing evidence with references? Of my claims that you find disagreeable, which of those do you want evidence for?

You're neglecting to factor in that people here have had this debate before, explored the concept, and rejected it. You seem to be insinuating that we are simply firing from the hip and have never considered the option. Honestly, your assertion is not new on the forum.