Stop the NeoCons! Vote strategically against Harper

[earth_as_one]

If you are against the Bush/Harper neo-Con agenda consider voting strategically (ABC - Anyone But Conservative) in this election. Go to this website and find out which party has the best chance of defeating the conservative candidate in your riding:

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

It doesn't make sense for the neo-con opposition (a majority of Canadians) to split the vote against Harper. Ideally I'd like to see the Liberals, NDP and Green Party divide up the country and not run candidates against each.

A Harper majority can only be stopped if enough Canadians vote strategically. If that means voting for another party other than your choice, consider that the alternative is aiding a Conservative majority. If you are conflicted, consider donating money to your party of choice and then voting for whoever has the best chance of beating your local conservative.

 

[china]

Vote Conservative ,to conserve whatever is left of our country(economically) !

 

[Walter]

I'm voting for Peter Van Loan in my riding.

 

[darkbeaver]

Vote Conservative ,to conserve whatever is left of our country(economically) !

Those red Tories are long gone China, they've been replaced with internationalists.

 

[earth_as_one]

Vote Conservative ,to conserve whatever is left of our country(economically) !

Wow some people really don't get it. The current economic cris in the US comes from neoconservative deregulation of the American banking system:

The dangers of deregulation
By Robert Kuttner | March 17, 2007

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and the US Chamber of Commerce picked an awkward moment for their latest assault on financial and consumer-protection regulation. At the very moment that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was meeting with Wall Street bigwigs in a high-profile confab this week to call for weakening of the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other investor and consumer protections, the stock market was tanking.

Why is the market so nervous? Mainly thanks to the latest bitter fruit of financial deregulation : the collapsing $1.3 trillion "subprime" mortgage business, which now accounts for one mortgage in three. Here is a textbook case of why financial institutions need to be regulated, to protect both consumers and the solvency of the larger economy.

In the past decade, as regulators discarded rules, shady mortgage banking companies, financed by the bluest-chip outfits on Wall Street, calculated that they could make a lot of money offering bait-and-switch mortgages to poor credit risks. Default and foreclosure rates would be greater, but higher profits would more than compensate for the risks. So the subprime mortgage industry, enabled by the big banks, invented amazing gimmicks. These included not just variable-rate mortgages, but mortgages that were initially interest only, mortgages with introductory teaser rates, mortgages with no down payment. No income verification required! No credit check! Subprime operators targeted people with horrific credit histories and families desperate for housing who could not afford the debt they were taking on. Last year, 60 percent of subprime loans required no meaningful documentation.

Then came the morning-after: As higher payments kicked in, people couldn't meet them. Defaults skyrocketed, to an estimated 13 percent of all such loans. At least 25 subprime lenders have gone out of business. The big dogs on Wall Street, who had invested in the subprime operators, took a big hit, too.

It's not clear where this will end. Many low-income families will lose their homes. Innocent investors will suffer the spillover effects on the stock market, and general mortgage rates may have to go up to compensate for these losses of reckless speculation...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...icles/2007/03/17/the_dangers_of_deregulation/

The only reaason why what's going on in the US isn't going on here is the same reason why Canada isn't in Iraq. Harper never had the power to impose his US styled neoconservative agenda. A Harper majority would give him that authority.

 

[TenPenny]

Wow some people really don't get it. The current economic cris in the US comes from neoconservative deregulation of the American banking system:

In which case, don't blame Bush, it's Clinton you should be looking at.

 

[tamarin]

Absolutely, tenpenny! The key to the mess is deregulation imposed by Clinton in his time in office. The GOP just added to the soup he placed on the burner.

 

[Ron in Regina]

So....following the thought process in the chain of postings on this thread..."earth_as_one" says
that economic mess in the USA is caused by the neoconservative deregulation of the American
banking system, which "TenPenny" and "tamarin" state happened under Bill Clinton's watch...
So then Bill Clinton is one of the neoconservatives we are suppose to be afraid of then???
Oh My God. I think Bill Clinton did a speaking engagement out in Western Canada a few
years ago. That must be the reason that between Alberta & Saskatchewan that there
is not a single NDP MP and only one lonely Liberal MP. It's Bill Clinton's neoconservative
fault! How dare he unify a very large consecutive chunk of Canada behind one united
political party....instead of several squabbling left leaning parties. That neocon b@stard!

 

[TenPenny]

As I said, IF you blame DEREGULATION, then you HAVE to blame Clinton.

 

[tamarin]

Ron, if you're taking a course in stupidity I think you just earned your degree. BTW how are the NDP doing provincially in the pasture there? Hmmm. Maybe the problem isn't the party at the federal level, it's the people in it and the platform chosen.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Ron, if you're taking a course in stupidity I think you just earned your degree. BTW how are the NDP doing provincially in the pasture there? Hmmm. Maybe the problem isn't the party at the federal level, it's the people in it and the platform chosen.

I've no idea how the NDP are doing in the pasture, but Saskatchewan has had four consecutive
terms of NDP provincially before we put them out to pasture. Now we're try'n something new.

"Don't vote for the Party you actually want to get in and run the country based on your own
belief system!!! Vote for someone else that you wouldn't normally vote for so that a third
party who might actually (democratically) earn the most votes doesn't get in! That way we can
be governed by some party that, if you where honest with yourself and true to your own
values, wouldn't have a chance!" Yeah...that makes all kinds of sense.

 

[tamarin]

Aspirin time.

 

[darkbeaver]

As I said, IF you blame DEREGULATION, then you HAVE to blame Clinton.

Yea but if you don't blame deregulation you'd have nothing and nobody to blame. Except maybe spontaneous economic ruin caused by rampant homosexuality and the erosion of family values coupled with godless hedonistic lifestyles advocated by latte drinking poofter liberal progressives and the lazy filthy socialist bums trying to get thier hands in our wallets. I think maybe deregulation is a more likely choice. Nancy Raygun is to blame she was Ronnies brain in the last days of great communiction.

 

[earth_as_one]

As I said, IF you blame DEREGULATION, then you HAVE to blame Clinton.

Just because Clinton didn't veto the bill, doesn't make him responsible for it. Neocons drafted the bill and Republican majorities in the House and the Senate passed it.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted 1999-11-12, is an Act of the United States Congress which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. For example, Citibank merged with Travelers Group, an insurance company, and in 1998 formed the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking and insurance underwriting services. Other major mergers in the financial sector had already taken place such as the Smith-Barney, Shearson, Primerica and Travelers Insurance Corporation combination in the mid-1990s. This combination, announced in 1993 and finalized in 1994, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act by combining insurance and securities companies, if not for a temporary waiver process [1]. The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the financial services industry....


...The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This 'veto proof legislation' was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999[1]
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act#Congressional_history_of_the_Act

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Vote Conservative ,to conserve whatever is left of our country(economically) !

Hey China good day to you, look south of Canada’s boarder, the yanks, under Clinton they recorded record billions of surpluses, Bush sure preserved what ever was left for the American people, he put America on the path to financial asphyxiation……..
That means the American people will be working for the next 500 years to get rid off Bush’s Conservative BULL SH!T ECONOMICS…….

Hey by the way vote Conservative in China, I am sure you are not allowed……………

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Wow some people really don't get it. The current economic cris in the US comes from neoconservative deregulation of the American banking system:





The only reaason why what's going on in the US isn't going on here is the same reason why Canada isn't in Iraq. Harper never had the power to impose his US styled neoconservative agenda. A Harper majority would give him that authority.

That just shows how politicly uninformed China is......

 

[Risus]

Wow some people really don't get it. The current economic cris in the US comes from neoconservative deregulation of the American banking system:





The only reaason why what's going on in the US isn't going on here is the same reason why Canada isn't in Iraq. Harper never had the power to impose his US styled neoconservative agenda. A Harper majority would give him that authority.

On what are you basing this?? Are you dreaming it??

 

[Ron in Regina]

Ron, if you're taking a course in stupidity I think you just earned your degree. BTW how are the NDP doing provincially in the pasture there? Hmmm. Maybe the problem isn't the party at the federal level, it's the people in it and the platform chosen.

Sorry "tamarin." As I was running through these threads yesterday and hoping that I'd be healthy enough
to go to work in the morning, I stumbled across this thread which I thought was one of the most ignorant
and two-faced things I'd ever seen. My trying to match the stupidity I was reading was a form of sarcasm
from a guy fighting the flu and generally lacking a sense of humor at the time. My opinion hasn't changed
but I should have just sworn and went to bed. This "strategic" voting isn't being very true to yourselves, but
to each their own I guess.

Saskatchewan has had four consecutive provincial terms of the NDP (we're very Union heavy) and we just
stagnated. As a province we're trying something different now and it's working for us. We're all entitled to
our opinions though, and I wouldn't dream of calling you stupid...or getting a degree in a coarse in stupidity.
I haven't had someone outright attack me on these forums without backing up their statement with a fact;
though I've seen it done by others to others several times. Thank You for making me feel included, I guess.
That's my coffee break. I'm going back to work.

 

[TenPenny]

Just because Clinton didn't veto the bill, doesn't make him responsible for it. Neocons drafted the bill and Republican majorities in the House and the Senate passed it.

Oh, so the fact that he had a veto but didn't use it now makes him NOT responsible for it? It's always someone else's fault, even when you're given veto power. As long as you can blame somebody else, that's a good thing.

Sometimes, inaction is the same as action. Approval means agreement.

 

[Risus]

Oh, so the fact that he had a veto but didn't use it now makes him NOT responsible for it? It's always someone else's fault, even when you're given veto power. As long as you can blame somebody else, that's a good thing.

Sometimes, inaction is the same as action. Approval means agreement.

Some people just don't understand it...