Who ya votin' for?

[Reverend Blair]

First of all, you failed to answer the question presented to you.

I answered your question just fine, Breakdancer. The NDP say how they will pay for their policies. They've been doing that since your boy Mulroney was running up huge deficits and raising taxes for working Canadians while he was cutting them for his corporate pals.

It was interesting to see Harper and Mulroney acting all lovey-dovey at your policy convention, especially since Harper's first job in Ottawa was working for Mulroney's government.

I sense you're getting angry and I don't know why. I simply expressed my opinion and you're going off about "corporate masters".
You still didn't answer my question again.
You stated that holding the balance of power is actually BETTER than beating the Liberals.

Nice try, little buddy. Not only an I not getting angry, but I'm laughing at your ineffectual attempts at spin. You want to know about corporate masters? How about you check out the campaign donations here.

Don't try to twist my words either. The fact is that a Conservative minority, which is all they can win, would be incapable of bringing any meaningful change and would fall so quickly that having two elections in 2006 would be a very real possibility.

If the NDP hold the balance of power they can get a real ethics package through, as opposed to the Conservatives witch-hunt package, and ensure that we never again have a majority government that received less than half of the popular vote.

I don't need to disprove anything. I'll even take your word for it.

Good, it's about time you acknowledged that the Conservatives are corrupt.

Now can you prove that the Conservatives are MORE corrupt than the Liberals?

Not without them getting back into power. I think I'll vote for real change though. Why choose the status quo when that status quo is acknowledged to be corrupt by the very people who are supporting it.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

Now I truly understand what this "spin" thing is.

My question.........

Perhaps this is the NDP's version of a hidden agenda. They want to increase spending substantially in several areas. Where would they get the money from if they're not intending on increasing taxes?

Your answers..........

As always, the NDP isn't afraid to say how they'll pay for things. As always, that way isn't on the backs of the Canadian people. Your scare campaign is a bad joke, breakdancer.

and

I answered your question just fine, Breakdancer. The NDP say how they will pay for their policies. They've been doing that since your boy Mulroney was running up huge deficits and raising taxes for working Canadians while he was cutting them for his corporate pals.

I fail to see how anything of which you wrote has anything to do with the question asked.

Nice try, little buddy. Not only an I not getting angry, but I'm laughing at your ineffectual attempts at spin. You want to know about corporate masters? How about you check out the campaign donations here.

Little buddy? Is this your attempt to belittle me? Who even brought up "corporate masters"? You.

Don't try to twist my words either. The fact is that a Conservative minority, which is all they can win, would be incapable of bringing any meaningful change and would fall so quickly that having two elections in 2006 would be a very real possibility.

If the NDP hold the balance of power they can get a real ethics package through, as opposed to the Conservatives witch-hunt package, and ensure that we never again have a majority government that received less than half of the popular vote.

This is your own opinion and you're welcome to it. The fact of the matter is that you are claiming that the NDP will have more power with 20 seats than the CPC will have with 120 seats. The NDP just held the balance of power and here we are going to the election polls in January. Is this the balance power you're talking about? How are things going to change when the NDP send the same 20 or so seats to Ottawa, and the Liberals are still in power?

Good, it's about time you acknowledged that the Conservatives are corrupt.

All the parties are corrupt. At least I can admit it. Now can you admit that the Liberals are even more corrupt than the Conservatives?

While you're formulating your response, be sure to answer this question. I think you overlooked it last time.

My question was " How is holding the "balance" of power "better" than beating the Liberals?"

 

[Reverend Blair]

Now I truly understand what this "spin" thing is.

:roll: You came here to spin. You know it, I know it, the guy who was here yesterday wondering about whacky on-line political marketing knows it.

My question.........

Your question isn't an honest question because it is dependent on people not knowing what the NDP platform, and record of platforms, is. It is a question designed to imply that the NDP would raise taxes for average Canadians. That simply isn't so. In fact they would drop taxes for working Canadians if possible and have consistently argued against the shifting of the tax burden from the wealthy and corporations onto the backs of working people. Your question attempts to discount reality and instead promote a misperception.

Since you are looking for a cheap soundbite answer instead of actually discussing policy though...the money comes from closing loopholes and tax breaks for corporations who send their profits out of Canada. Is that short enough for you?

Little buddy? Is this your attempt to belittle me?

I was trying to be friendly and you remind me of Gilligan.

Who even brought up "corporate masters"?

Of course I brought them up...they make me puke.

This is your own opinion and you're welcome to it.

Actually, it's an analysis of politcal reality based on real politick instead of pipedreams.

The fact of the matter is that you are claiming that the NDP will have more power with 20 seats than the CPC will have with 120 seats.

Yes. Welcome to the real world.

The NDP just held the balance of power and here we are going to the election polls in January. Is this the balance power you're talking about?

$4.6 billion for average Canadians. Next time around it will be the NDP ethics package, including PR...something you say that you want, but your party has nothing to advance.

How are things going to change when the NDP send the same 20 or so seats to Ottawa, and the Liberals are still in power?

The NDP, according to all but the most conservative analysis by the most Conservative analysts, will have more than 20 seats. You need to get out more.

All the parties are corrupt. At least I can admit it. Now can you admit that the Liberals are even more corrupt than the Conservatives?

I've seen no evidence of that. What I see is the Liberals and Conservatives vying for control of the trough.

My question was " How is holding the "balance" of power "better" than beating the Liberals?"

That may have been your question, but your intent is to convince people to vote Conservative.

To answer your question though...medicare, employment insurance, and a bevy of other programs that Canadians need and use. That's the NDP record.

To that record we can add the NDP Ethics Package, which addresses all concerns instead of just attacking a single political opponent; the environment, which the Conservatives seem intent on destroying; native issues, which the Conservatives have no real plan on at all since they seem to unable to even comprehend that there are native issues; corporate responsibility, which the Conservatives have a long record of discouraging; stopping deep integration with the US; and maintaining universal healthcare, which the Conservatives would destroy.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

You came here to spin. You know it, I know it, the guy who was here yesterday wondering about whacky on-line political marketing knows it.

and here I thought this was a place for debate. Silly me.

Since you are looking for a cheap soundbite answer instead of actually discussing policy though...the money comes from closing loopholes and tax breaks for corporations who send their profits out of Canada. Is that short enough for you?

Your answer is vague and taking away tax breaks is a form of increasing taxes. To rebut your accusation, I would love to discuss policy. Bring forth the NDP's plan on how they plan to fund their initiatives and I will be completeley open minded. Stop thinking that I'm spinning or trying to convince people to do anything. I couldn't care less who the people on this site are voting for.

I was trying to be friendly and you remind me of Gilligan.

What about me exactly reminds you of Gilligan? Is it my white navy hat or is it my red shirt?

Actually, it's an analysis of politcal reality based on real politick instead of pipedreams.

Then why even go through this silly election thingy? You should call up Elections Canada and tell them the results over the phone.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that you are claiming that the NDP will have more power with 20 seats than the CPC will have with 120 seats.


Yes. Welcome to the real world.

That's doesn't even seem logical.

$4.6 billion for average Canadians. Next time around it will be the NDP ethics package, including PR...something you say that you want, but your party has nothing to advance.

What happens if the Liberals win a majority? What happens to the NDP's ethics package then?

The NDP, according to all but the most conservative analysis by the most Conservative analysts, will have more than 20 seats. You need to get out more.

20, 25, 30. What difference will it make if the Liberals win a majority?

Quote:
All the parties are corrupt. At least I can admit it. Now can you admit that the Liberals are even more corrupt than the Conservatives?


I've seen no evidence of that. What I see is the Liberals and Conservatives vying for control of the trough.

Like I said. ALL parties are corrupt. Just ask Olivia Chow or Svend Robinson.

Quote:
My question was " How is holding the "balance" of power "better" than beating the Liberals?"


That may have been your question, but your intent is to convince people to vote Conservative.

To answer your question though...medicare, employment insurance, and a bevy of other programs that Canadians need and use. That's the NDP record.

Now you are really spinning. What you really trying to say is that the NDP can only hope to hold the balance of power. You know that that they will never form a government and the remark that you made was in error.

 

[Reverend Blair]

and here I thought this was a place for debate. Silly me.

Where you showed up just before an election to make a case for a party that isn't popular on this site. Hmmmm....

Your answer is vague and taking away tax breaks is a form of increasing taxes.

On corporations though, Breakthrough. That's a whole lot different than the spectre of raising personal income taxes that the Conservatives like to put forth as NDP policy.

To rebut your accusation, I would love to discuss policy.

Wait for the platform, little buddy. I don't see your party putting everything on the table yet either.

If you want to vote on policy, I'd suggest taking the Quiz.

Stop thinking that I'm spinning or trying to convince people to do anything. I couldn't care less who the people on this site are voting for.

Then why are you here? I don't mind you being here, but let's be honest.

What about me exactly reminds you of Gilligan?

Well, the hat and shirt help.

Then why even go through this silly election thingy? You should call up Elections Canada and tell them the results over the phone.

That doesn't sound very democratic.

That's doesn't even seem logical.

Not if you're a mathematician putting together sports stats, but politics is not the zero sum, win/loss game that Conservatives are trying to convince us that it is.

What happens if the Liberals win a majority? What happens to the NDP's ethics package then?

Nobody is predicting a Liberal majority. That's what makes this the best time to vote for the NDP.

20, 25, 30. What difference will it make if the Liberals win a majority?

The Liberals won't win a majority if people vote NDP, my scare-mongering little buddy.

Like I said. ALL parties are corrupt. Just ask Olivia Chow or Svend Robinson.

What have either of them ever done to show the NDP is corrupt? Svend was suffering frm a documented mental illness, and what he did had nothing to do with the NDP. What has Olivia Chow done wrong? Don't even start with that shitty lie about the subsidized housing.

Now you are really spinning.

Far less than you are.

What you really trying to say is that the NDP can only hope to hold the balance of power.

Actually what I am saying is the NDP have managed some huge accomplishments when they have held the balance of power and we should give them that balance again.

You know that that they will never form a government and the remark that you made was in error.

No errors in what I said. Lets look at what the Conservatives have done when they've "beat" the Liberals. The GST, huge deficits, FTA and NAFTA, cuts to social programs, increases in taxes.

Of course the Harperites have tried to distance themselves from Mulroney even as Harper has called him an advisor. Let's look at the Harper record in opposition. He was against SSM. He was for the illegal invasion of Iraq and even went so far as apologising for Canada not sending our people to die for George Bush's oil. He supported corporate tax cuts but whined like a little girl about spending money on programs that Canadians liked. He was pissed off that we didn't send Maher Arar off to be tortured ourselves. His criticism of our rights-raping anti-terror law was that it didn't take away enough rights.

I'm not afraid of the NDP's record, you should look at your own.

 

[MMMike]

Your question isn't an honest question because it is dependent on people not knowing what the NDP platform, and record of platforms, is. It is a question designed to imply that the NDP would raise taxes for average Canadians. That simply isn't so. In fact they would drop taxes for working Canadians if possible and have consistently argued against the shifting of the tax burden from the wealthy and corporations onto the backs of working people. Your question attempts to discount reality and instead promote a misperception.

Since you are looking for a cheap soundbite answer instead of actually discussing policy though...the money comes from closing loopholes and tax breaks for corporations who send their profits out of Canada. Is that short enough for you?

Well, what about the export tax on oil that No1 mentioned on the other thread? Where do you think that money will come from if not from the average persons pockets at the pumps. And Jack Layton can't argue on one hand that he wants to 'close loopholes and tax breaks' for corporations while pledging subsidies for the Canadian auto sector on the other hand. I guess the support for autoworkers is not a subsidy, it is a bribe for votes, right?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Well, what about the export tax on oil that No1 mentioned on the other thread?

As I explained in the other thread, there is a difference between an export tax (that costs Canadians nothing) being used as a retaliatory trade measure and a tax on Canadian workers.

Where do you think that money will come from if not from the average persons pockets at the pumps.

How much will an export tax cost you, MMMikey? Do you spend that much time in the US?

And Jack Layton can't argue on one hand that he wants to 'close loopholes and tax breaks' for corporations while pledging subsidies for the Canadian auto sector on the other hand. I guess the support for autoworkers is not a subsidy, it is a bribe for votes, right?

Hmmmm...having a corporation pay its share of taxes while employing Canadian workers who pay their share of taxes vs. having a plant shut down so there are no taxes paid but spending for social programs goes up.

The money for the autoworkers also includes increased money for R&D, both in the public and private sectors, which will help to advance technology while addressing environmental concerns. That saves money and places Canada in a position to export advanced green technology instead of paying to import it.

What's Harper's plan? To ship the jobs to Mexico and the profits to Detroit while Canada becomes more and more polluted and huge costs are incurred by global warming? Not much of a plan at all.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

Having computer problems. I apologize for any repeated statements.

Where you showed up just before an election to make a case for a party that isn't popular on this site. Hmmmm....

I've been debating on political sites for more than four years. This was hardly a random act. Plus, I hadn't realized that this was an anti-Conservative forum like you claim. Perhaps you can get the administrator to change the name accordingly. Canadian Content gives one the impression that all Canadian issues are on the table, not just the ones the NDP supports.

On corporations though, Breakthrough. That's a whole lot different than the spectre of raising personal income taxes that the Conservatives like to put forth as NDP policy.

Thanks for clarifying. The NDP will not raise taxes but will raise taxes. On corporations.

Wait for the platform, little buddy. I don't see your party putting everything on the table yet either.

Perhaps you should reserve bringing up the NDP's platform until it becomes available to all Canadians. You wouldn't want people to think that the NDP has a "hidden agenda" now would you?

There's that "little buddy" jab again. That's not very "Reverend" of you. Are you really a Reverend or is that just your handle?

If you want to vote on policy, I'd suggest taking the Quiz.

I already took the quiz and it was almost a dead heat between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Like I have already stated, I have voted Liberal my whole life so any attempt to try and paint me with some neo-con or fanatical right wing agenda would be pointless.

Then why are you here? I don't mind you being here, but let's be honest.

Honestly. I enjoy discussing political issues. Some enjoy drinking, I enjoy politics. I have no problem having heated debates but I usually draw the line when the person I'm debating with has to resort to personal attacks. Just for the record, I don't feel that you have attacked me. The "little buddy" jab is tame compared to what I have seen in the past.

Not if you're a mathematician putting together sports stats, but politics is not the zero sum, win/loss game that Conservatives are trying to convince us that it is.

Pardon my ignorance but how have the Conservatives, or any party for that matter tried to convince us of this?

Nobody is predicting a Liberal majority. That's what makes this the best time to vote for the NDP.

I would cetainly disagree with that. I have many Liberal friends that are convinced that the Liberals will win a majority. They even back that claim up with so called "facts". They aren't real facts but that's a different story.

The Liberals won't win a majority if people vote NDP, my scare-mongering little buddy.

Scare mongering? Please tell me your kidding. Martin scared the heck out of Buzz and now even he has switched sides. Did you notice the hit the NDP numbers had after that happened. I think you are confused as to who you're enemy is. It's not Harper stealing your voters, it's Martin. I would think that you, of all people would be sick of this Liberal strategy. Not only are they fear mongering NDP supporters into voting Liberal, but at the same time, they are stealing election funds that would have gone to the NDP along with power that the NDP would posess without the fear mongering.

What have either of them ever done to show the NDP is corrupt? Svend was suffering frm a documented mental illness, and what he did had nothing to do with the NDP. What has Olivia Chow done wrong? Don't even start with that shitty lie about the subsidized housing.

Svend is a criminal no matter which way you spin it and Olivia was in a bit of trouble last year when she spearheaded the closure of a restaurant in Toronto because one of her close friends was inconvenienced by it's competition. Lets just agree to disagree on the subsidized housing issue. I'm not claiming the high road here, but I think any rational Canadian can admit that ALL parties are corrupt.

Actually what I am saying is the NDP have managed some huge accomplishments when they have held the balance of power and we should give them that balance again.

But it's still not better than actually "holding" power. The NDP will NEVER hold power as long as the Liberal party uses the NDP as a farm team for their voters. I bet that if you took out the Liberal fear factor, the NDP would easily win 50 seats in the next election and can use that result as springboard for future elections to one day actually gain power. The way things are going now, the NDP will always be a fringe party.

He was against SSM.

I support SSM but in all fairness, what Harper called for was a free vote in the house, NOT a ban on SSM. To be even fairer, you would have to include 40 or so Liberals that actively denied a direct order from Martin. Lets not forget that Martin "demanded" that his party members vote in favour of SSM. How is that democratic?

Wait for the platform, little buddy. I don't see your party putting everything on the table yet either.

Perhaps you should reserve bringing up the NDP's platform until it becomes available to all Canadians. You wouldn't want people to think that the NDP has a "hidden agenda" now would you?

There's that "little buddy" jab again. That's not very "Reverend" of you. Are you really a Reverend or is that just your handle?

If you want to vote on policy, I'd suggest taking the Quiz.

I already took the quiz and it was almost a dead heat between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Like I have already stated, I have voted Liberal my whole life so any attempt to try and paint me with some neo-con or fanatical right wing agenda would be pointless.

Then why are you here? I don't mind you being here, but let's be honest.

Honestly. I enjoy discussing political issues. Some enjoy drinking, I enjoy politics. I have no problem having heated debates but I usually draw the line when the person I'm debating with has to resort to personal attacks. Just for the record, I don't feel that you have attacked me. The "little buddy" jab is tame compared to what I have seen in the past.

Not if you're a mathematician putting together sports stats, but politics is not the zero sum, win/loss game that Conservatives are trying to convince us that it is.

Pardon my ignorance but how have the Conservatives, or any party for that matter tried to convince us of this?

Nobody is predicting a Liberal majority. That's what makes this the best time to vote for the NDP.

I would cetainly disagree with that. I have many Liberal friends that are convinced that the Liberals will win a majority. They even back that claim up with so called "facts". They aren't real facts but that's a different story.

The Liberals won't win a majority if people vote NDP, my scare-mongering little buddy.

Scare mongering? Please tell me your kidding. Martin scared the heck out of Buzz and now even he has switched sides. Did you notice the hit the NDP numbers had after that happened. I think you are confused as to who you're enemy is. It's not Harper stealing your voters, it's Martin. I would think that you, of all people would be sick of this Liberal strategy. Not only are they fear mongering NDP supporters into voting Liberal, but at the same time, they are stealing election funds that would have gone to the NDP along with power that the NDP would posess without the fear mongering.

What have either of them ever done to show the NDP is corrupt? Svend was suffering frm a documented mental illness, and what he did had nothing to do with the NDP. What has Olivia Chow done wrong? Don't even start with that shitty lie about the subsidized housing.

Svend is a criminal no matter which way you spin it and Olivia was in a bit of trouble last year when she spearheaded the closure of a restaurant in Toronto because one of her close friends was inconvenienced by it's competition. Lets just agree to disagree on the subsidized housing issue. I'm not claiming the high road here, but I think any rational Canadian can admit that ALL parties are corrupt.

Actually what I am saying is the NDP have managed some huge accomplishments when they have held the balance of power and we should give them that balance again.

It's still not better than holding power and as long as the Liberals use the NDP as their farm system, the NDP will never hold power in Canada.

Regarding the GST, if you are so opposed to it, then why are you against reducing it now? You can't have it both ways. You are either FOR it or AGAINST it. If you are for it, then you agree with Mulroney. If you are against it, then you agree with Harper. You can't play both sides of the fence. Not to mention that the Liberals entire campaign rallied around the elimination of the GST yet here we are. Last time the Liberals that it was a great idea to "Axe the tax" yet now it's a bad idea. Flip flop?

Regarding Iraq, Martin was in support of that also. In fact we have Canadians being killed in Afghanistan thanks to Martin.

Regarding SSM, for the record I support it. Harper wants a free vote in the house. The last time I checked, even though Martin demanded that his memebers vote in favour of it, 40 or so Liberals defied him and voted against it. You can't just paint the Conservative party as "homophobic" when many Liberal members felt the same way.

A free vote is democratic don't you think?

He supported corporate tax cuts but whined like a little girl about spending money on programs that Canadians liked. He was pissed off that we didn't send Maher Arar off to be tortured ourselves. His criticism of our rights-raping anti-terror law was that it didn't take away enough rights.

The above is simply rhetoric. If you wish to discuss this, just post some links that back up your "opinions" and I would be happy to discuss them.

I'm not afraid of the NDP's record, you should look at your own.

The NDP does not have a record since they have never been in power. If things don't change, the NDP will never hold power because their voters aren't very loyal when all it takes is a call from another party leader to sway their vote.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I've been debating on political sites for more than four years.

Me too. So what?

This was hardly a random act.

That was my point.

Plus, I hadn't realized that this was an anti-Conservative forum like you claim.

A quick look around would show that most of the members here are left-leaning, or at least not supportive of the Harperites. The site doesn't have a political stance at all, it's membership has a certain perspective.

Canadian Content gives one the impression that all Canadian issues are on the table, not just the ones the NDP supports.

Canadian issues are on the table. That's why there's so much opposition to Harper here.

Thanks for clarifying. The NDP will not raise taxes but will raise taxes. On corporations.

When Mulroney took power, the tax burden was split approximately 50/50 between corporations and Canadians. Now they split approximately 25/75 and corporations are still looking for more cuts. Corporations like General Motors have said that social programs like healthcare help to keep their costs down here, so clearly corporations derive a benefit from Canadian taxes. Why the hell shouldn't corporations pay at least the taxes they owe?

Perhaps you should reserve bringing up the NDP's platform until it becomes available to all Canadians. You wouldn't want people to think that the NDP has a "hidden agenda" now would you?

Perhaps not. The NDP have record they can stand on. The Conservative record scares the crap out of a majority of Canadians.

There's that "little buddy" jab again.

As I explained before, it's an endearment, not a jab.

That's not very "Reverend" of you. Are you really a Reverend or is that just your handle?

An honest to god internet-ordained atheist reverend. You can get ordained too...it's free and only takes a few minutes. In the end you will have the same credentials as some rather famous television preachers. Cool, eh?

I already took the quiz and it was almost a dead heat between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Like I have already stated, I have voted Liberal my whole life so any attempt to try and paint me with some neo-con or fanatical right wing agenda would be pointless.

You should have put your results up in the thread...Paul and Stephen need all the help they can get.

Honestly. I enjoy discussing political issues.

Me too, but neither of us is exactly prone to taking a neutral position. You came here to promote your party. I've never been shy about promoting mine.

Some enjoy drinking, I enjoy politics.

I like to multi-task. 8)

I have no problem having heated debates but I usually draw the line when the person I'm debating with has to resort to personal attacks. Just for the record, I don't feel that you have attacked me. The "little buddy" jab is tame compared to what I have seen in the past.

Like I said, it's an endearment, not a jab. You'll know if I decide to attack you.

Pardon my ignorance but how have the Conservatives, or any party for that matter tried to convince us of this?

Yes. The Conservatives have been playin the either/or game since they were the Reform. They've tried promoting western alienation/separatism as a scare tactic (still do), and claimed that nobody else could do anything right because everybody else is corrupt. They've spent more time scandal-mongering than addressing real issues because they want to paint all the others as immoral and evil. It's a modified version of Bush's with us or agin us outlook that has polarised the US so badly, and a standard part of neo-conservative campaign tactics.

I would cetainly disagree with that. I have many Liberal friends that are convinced that the Liberals will win a majority. They even back that claim up with so called "facts". They aren't real facts but that's a different story.

I have friends that are predicting an NDP victory, or at least opposition. I know one guy who honestly believes the Greens have a shot at forming a minority government. Part of that is self-delusion, but most of that is people believing that they are likely to attract more support (or chase support away from other parties) if they can convince others that their party will win anyway.

I have not heard one serious political commentator or analyst of any leaning predicting that this election will result in a majority government of any stripe. Those with reputations on the line do not make such unlikely claims.

Scare mongering? Please tell me your kidding.

Not being a goat, it's unlikely that I'm kidding.

Martin scared the heck out of Buzz and now even he has switched sides.

Buzz was quite clear in his original statements and later on both NewsWorld's Politics and CTV's Mike Duffy Show that he had not switched sides at all. He was promoting a voting strategy that he feels will serve the people he represents the best. I don't agree with the strategy, but I'm not willing to misrepresent what Buzz said just because I think he is wrong.

Did you notice the hit the NDP numbers had after that happened.

It actually wasn't as bad as I thought it would be when I saw the original speech. It's also shifting back as more people actually realise what Buzz actually said and as they realise that he's wrong.

I think you are confused as to who you're enemy is. It's not Harper stealing your voters, it's Martin.

Oh? Funny, but the riding I put up NDP signs in last election has Conservative Andy "Parachute Boy" Scheer as its MP. While some of that is because people voted for the Liberals, some of it is also because people voted for Scheer. A lot of people in that riding are severely disappointed in Scheer and, since they raise a lot of cattle, none to happy with the CPC protecting US packing companies while the farmers got screwed.

I would think that you, of all people would be sick of this Liberal strategy.

I am, but I also realise that the Conservatives are no better, and possibly even worse, than the Liberals with their campaign tactics.

Svend is a criminal no matter which way you spin it and Olivia was in a bit of trouble last year when she spearheaded the closure of a restaurant in Toronto because one of her close friends was inconvenienced by it's competition. Lets just agree to disagree on the subsidized housing issue. I'm not claiming the high road here, but I think any rational Canadian can admit that ALL parties are corrupt.

You can spin it however you want. ou can even make false claims like you've just done. What you can't do is change the fact that the NDP have a real and clear plan to address corruption and the CPC do not.

Harper and MacKay can't even agree on something as basic as what the role of your special prosecutor would be, not to mention that no matter what the role is it would be trampling all over provincial jurisdiction, which you party says it wants to protect and even expand.

But it's still not better than actually "holding" power. The NDP will NEVER hold power as long as the Liberal party uses the NDP as a farm team for their voters.

And unless the CPC win a clear majority government, they will have no power at all. Since you've been going out of your way to alienate Quebec (not to mention most of the rest of Canada) for a couple of decades, you cannot win a majority.

I bet that if you took out the Liberal fear factor, the NDP would easily win 50 seats in the next election and can use that result as springboard for future elections to one day actually gain power.

Likely. That isn't the political reality though, and the Harperites are the ones that have induced the fear, the Liberals have just played it up for their political advantage.

The way things are going now, the NDP will always be a fringe party.

And the CPC will return to being an Alberta rump party.

I support SSM but in all fairness, what Harper called for was a free vote in the house, NOT a ban on SSM.

No, what the CPC has done since the very beginning of this debate is to try to deny some Canadians their rights under the Charter. Harper had a chance to let that fade into history, but he chose to raise it again.

To be even fairer, you would have to include 40 or so Liberals that actively denied a direct order from Martin. Lets not forget that Martin "demanded" that his party members vote in favour of SSM. How is that democratic?

The vast majority of Canadians vote either for a leader or a party, not an individual candidate. Until that changes, not enforcing party discipline is actually undemocratic.

If you really want democracy, as you and your party are so insistent on claiming, why didn't Harper agree to push for Proportional Representation while the Liberals were in a minority? Why isn't it on your key issues page as both a method of parliamentary reform and a method of addressing corruption? Why did Harper go to court to try to stop placing limits on third party spending? Why does Harper have a reputation as an autocrat? Why did both Brison and Stronach feel so uncomfortable in the CPC that they felt they had to change parties?

 

[Reverend Blair]

The above is simply rhetoric. If you wish to discuss this, just post some links that back up your "opinions" and I would be happy to discuss them.

Nonsense. Harper was so pleased with the Liberals' initial budget that he couldn't wait to get out into the foyer and say how great it was, especially the corporate tax cuts. Of course Martin had never campaigned on such tax cuts.

After the CPC pulled their support from budget, based on some transitory poll numbers that fooled them into thinking they could win an election, Layton stepped forward and got changes made to the budget that were not just NDP policy, but matched what Martin had campaigned on.

Polls showed that the majority of Canadians were very pleased with the changes that Layton had managed to get. All that Harper could do is whine that the NDP were a tax and spend party.

The NDP does not have a record since they have never been in power.

The NDP does have a record. People understand that when they stop to think about things, too. That's why the CPC like to scream tax and spend and bitch about social programs without ever mentioning the benefits of those programs.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

The Liberals won't win a majority if people vote NDP, my scare-mongering little buddy.

Scare mongering? Please tell me your kidding. Martin scared the heck out of Buzz and now even he has switched sides. Did you notice the hit the NDP numbers had after that happened. I think you are confused as to who you're enemy is. It's not Harper stealing your voters, it's Martin. I would think that you, of all people would be sick of this Liberal strategy. Not only are they fear mongering NDP supporters into voting Liberal, but at the same time, they are stealing election funds that would have gone to the NDP along with power that the NDP would posess without the fear mongering.

Ahem...

Delegates from the Canadian Auto Workers union have voted to elect as many NDP members and as few Conservatives as possible.

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

Howcome, nobody is talking about our foreign policy?

There are a billion Muslims out there in the world and only 14 million Jewish folks (8 million who live in Israel) .... why are we not rethinking our support for Israel and it's policies throughout the world?

It would be as though we supported Taiwan independence with a population of 10 million and create problems with China who have a population exceeding a billion. Kinda retarded, I think.

Who are these Israeli's anyways? They number only 14 million in the whole damn world and yet they have such an inordinate amount of influence upon the world stage.

Canada and Europe gives money to the Palestinians for infrastructure and only to have Israel destroy it with bombs and the tracks of army tanks.

The international community has told Israel to cease building the barrier or fence and they have refused.

Iran is being asked to allow inspections of nuclear facilities and yet Israel is not complying with the non-proliferation treaty itself.

Are Israel's values Canada's values?
By Mohamed Elmasry
November 22, 2005
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/22961

An Open Letter to Geoff Regan Concerning Paul Martin's Statement and Canadian Values
By Hilmi Salem
November 24, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/cxkxl

Is Canada scheming yet again to move its embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem?
By Gary Zatzman
November 30, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/e3tsb

 

[Colpy]

There are a billion Muslims out there in the world and only 14 million Jewish folks (8 million who live in Israel) .... why are we not rethinking our support for Israel and it's policies throughout the world?

Because Israel is a modern democracy that shares western values, and most Muslim states certainly are not.

It would be as though we supported Taiwan independence with a population of 10 million and create problems with China who have a population exceeding a billion. Kinda retarded, I think.

Personally, I think its "kinda retarded" to deal with a nation that is one of the world's worst dictatorships. I would see us support democratic Taiwan against the rising dragon.

Who are these Israeli's anyways? They number only 14 million in the whole damn world and yet they have such an inordinate amount of influence upon the world stage.

See above. Democratic, and under constant assault.

Canada and Europe gives money to the Palestinians for infrastructure and only to have Israel destroy it with bombs and the tracks of army tanks.

No, most of it get pocketed by the people running the corrupt Palestinian Authority. I believe Arafat had tens of millions, if not billions, on his death, all stolen.

The international community has told Israel to cease building the barrier or fence and they have refused.

Of course they have refused. Would you tear down the walls of your house if your neighbours asked you to? No, you need them to keep you safe from cold, in our case.

Iran is being asked to allow inspections of nuclear facilities and yet Israel is not complying with the non-proliferation treaty itself.

Iran's leaders have said that the development of a "Arab" nuclear weapon is important, not as a deterent, but to be immediately used against Israel. Israel has had nukes for decades, and not used them.

 

[#juan]

Paranoid Dot Calm

Would you mind fixing up your link or using TinyURL. That long URL is causing a lot of side scroll. Just copy that long url and the link below will make a short one for you.


http://tinyurl.com/19y

 

[Reverend Blair]

Because Israel is a modern democracy that shares western values,

Western values like blowing up Muslim children?

Of course they have refused. Would you tear down the walls of your house if your neighbours asked you to? No, you need them to keep you safe from cold, in our case.

Berlin Wall bad, Israeli Wall good? If I built a fence that meandered onto my neighbour's property in places and cut her off from water and part of her garden, I would be forced to remove the fence.

Iran's leaders have said that the development of a "Arab" nuclear weapon is important, not as a deterent, but to be immediately used against Israel. Israel has had nukes for decades, and not used them.

Members of the Bush regime have said that it's important for the US to have a first strike capability, to have nukes in space, and to develop mini-nukes for use on the battlefield.

 

[MMMike]

Because Israel is a modern democracy that shares western values,

Western values like blowing up Muslim children?

No, values like democracy, human rights, women's rights, freedom of speech etc. etc.... that do not exist in her neighbours. We'll leave the 'blowing up Muslim children' to the freedom fighters/insurgents/terrorist scum. They are quite good at it.

Of course they have refused. Would you tear down the walls of your house if your neighbours asked you to? No, you need them to keep you safe from cold, in our case.

Berlin Wall bad, Israeli Wall good? If I built a fence that meandered onto my neighbour's property in places and cut her off from water and part of her garden, I would be forced to remove the fence.

Israeli wall not good, but necessary. Even after the progress made in evacuating the west bank, the favorite sport of the jihadi is to launch mortars over the fence at women and children, or to convince their own women and children to blow themselves up.

Iran's leaders have said that the development of a "Arab" nuclear weapon is important, not as a deterent, but to be immediately used against Israel. Israel has had nukes for decades, and not used them.

Members of the Bush regime have said that it's important for the US to have a first strike capability, to have nukes in space, and to develop mini-nukes for use on the battlefield.

But they have had first strike capability for decades... and not used it. Plus, you haven't seen official government officials advocating the destruction of another country for decades, have you?

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

Hi! #juan

Okay! Done.

It took me a whole bunch of tries, but finally I succeeded.

Calm

 

[#juan]

Paranoid Dot Calm

You are great! Thank you. I use a Mozilla Firefox browser and the one area where it is inferior to Internet Explorer is it's vulnerability to side scroll. Thanks again.

 

[Roy]

i seems everyone here has already made their mind up of who they are going to vote for

 

[Colpy]

Because Israel is a modern democracy that shares western values,

Western values like blowing up Muslim children?

No, values like democracy, human rights, women's rights, freedom of speech etc. etc.... that do not exist in her neighbours. We'll leave the 'blowing up Muslim children' to the freedom fighters/insurgents/terrorist scum. They are quite good at it.

Of course they have refused. Would you tear down the walls of your house if your neighbours asked you to? No, you need them to keep you safe from cold, in our case.

Berlin Wall bad, Israeli Wall good? If I built a fence that meandered onto my neighbour's property in places and cut her off from water and part of her garden, I would be forced to remove the fence.

Israeli wall not good, but necessary. Even after the progress made in evacuating the west bank, the favorite sport of the jihadi is to launch mortars over the fence at women and children, or to convince their own women and children to blow themselves up.

Iran's leaders have said that the development of a "Arab" nuclear weapon is important, not as a deterent, but to be immediately used against Israel. Israel has had nukes for decades, and not used them.

Members of the Bush regime have said that it's important for the US to have a first strike capability, to have nukes in space, and to develop mini-nukes for use on the battlefield.

But they have had first strike capability for decades... and not used it. Plus, you haven't seen official government officials advocating the destruction of another country for decades, have you?

I see things heated up while I was at work.

Thanks Mike.....I came forward to defend my post, and found you had already handled it.