# The closing of the Canadian Election Thread by EhMax...



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I have been generally ignoring this thread for a while only posting from time to time when some post really struck in my craw.

I think by now we all have already voted or have decided how we are going to vote and I don't think any more posts to this thread are going to change anyone's mind... so if it has degraded in terms of content form that which I was seeing even recently then I support the closure.

Maybe we can move on from this partisan and emotional thread to instead just have a thread that is like a Stanley Cup thread, predicting the seat out come rather than the kind of posts we have been previously making... Turn it into a game rather than a serious competition.

Just a thought.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Why censor discussion that people are not forced to partake in? Don't like it, don't read it, or don't post. Simple.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well I don't know who complained, but being called a loser wasn't what I had in mind for the thread nor a pair actively trying to derail it. The cartoons are now going into joke du jour, some don't know when a joke goes too far.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have heard reams of unchallenged "humour" and unsubstantiated invective thrown at Conservatives. Guess it doesn't wear so well when the shoe is on the left foot.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well I think it went on both sides macfury, it isn't becoming to complain otherwise. But the latest just got ridiculous. Otherwise, the thread did well until it seemed to have gotten ugly all of sudden.

At this point, it's the last day of campaigning, so, it makes no difference to me.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Well I don't know who complained, but being called a loser wasn't what I had in mind for the thread nor a pair actively trying to derail it. The cartoons are now going into joke du jour, some don't know when a joke goes too far.


Oh my, that is quite offensive. How uncouth. 

Come on, the left loves to skewer the right wing with humour. It happens every night on Jon Stewart, This Hour and Rick Mercer. But, the second humour go against the left, well that's just not acceptable. You can dish it, but you can't take it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> At this point, it's the last day of campaigning, so, it makes no difference to me.


Two more days. I'm going to see the PM tomorrow. Watch for me on TV.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well vandave, this isn't the jon stewart show. Now I didn't complain over your cartoon etc., because I was walking away from it. I didn't care. But the thread t_ook an ugly turn_, and it just got boring. There's always a few that'll report things all the time.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> well vandave, this isn't the jon stewart show. Now I didn't complain over your cartoon etc., because I was walking away from it. I didn't care. But the thread took an ugly turn, and it just got boring.


Some people complained because the thread got boring?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> The cartoons are now going into joke du jour


Allegedly. I wasn't charged with it, so it never happened.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> being called a loser wasn't what I had in mind for the thread .


 He apologizes.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I never once thought that the purpose of any political thread was to change anyone's mind.

Still, it was doing well for quite a while there. It does seem to have at last gone the way of all such threads into same ol' same ol'.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Still, it was doing well for quite a while there. It does seem to have at last gone the way of all such threads into same ol' same ol'.


Ending in self-righteous indignation?

Whether or not you believe what he did was acceptable, many do not and many see a link between bawdy houses and sexual exploitation. For a leader of a party that supposedly champions such issues, it really undermines their credibility. That's worthy of discussion in a political thread.

Sometimes parody is the only tool one has to express an opinion when others have become dismissive. Surely, the left should understand this better than all else as they wield such a tool frequently.

Nothing I have said is any more offensive than what you would see in a Disney movie or on the CBC. Yet, we have a number of posters who express false outrage. Nothing new there. I agree.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I don't agree with the closing. True it can get a bit out of hand but that's just politics. Perhaps we can have two threads, one polite constructive non-partisan thread, one partisan free for all. You enter the latter at your own risk.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Ending in self-righteous indignation?
> 
> Whether or not you believe what he did was acceptable, many do not and many see a link between bawdy houses and sexual exploitation. For a leader of a party that supposedly champions such issues, it really undermines their credibility. That's worthy of discussion in a political thread.
> 
> ...


Truthfully vd I was not really offended by the cat image, despite the silly loser reference, , though sylvia the siamese may have other thoughts on that. There's always someone who'll complain, I didn't see the need to by any means, I was just tired of the circular argument over something neither of us know more about other than the handful of vague facts. There's plenty of Harper alleged scandals that dies quickly because there were no concrete evidences.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well supported commentary



> OPINION
> *Anyone but Harper: A dissenting endorsement*
> MATTHEW HAYS
> MONTREAL— Special to Globe and Mail Update
> ...


Anyone but Harper: A dissenting endorsement - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I gave up a long time ago, Wasn't worth it.
The election is nasty enough with the smear campaigns.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

So draconian. Why not just remove the offending posts rather than end all opportunity for debate? Such a Harpe-style tactic. Kill the discussion before it grows. Sheesh. The election hasn't even happened yet.


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> So draconian. Why not just remove the offending posts rather than end all opportunity for debate? Such a Harpe-style tactic. Kill the discussion before it grows. Sheesh. The election hasn't even happened yet.


What do you find specifically offensive?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Truthfully vd I was not really offended by the cat image, despite the silly loser reference, , though sylvia the siamese may have other thoughts on that. There's always someone who'll complain, I didn't see the need to by any means, I was just tired of the circular argument over something neither of us know more about other than the handful of vague facts. There's plenty of Harper alleged scandals that dies quickly because there were no concrete evidences.


Nothing vague about it. He admits to having been there and having been naked.

At the time he denied sexual services were received. He hasn't maintained or clarified that stance. He's guilty of leaving this issue open by not directly addressing it. He's free to make this less vague.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Vandave said:


> What do you find specifically offensive?


I find the censorship offensive, Dave, don't you? Why pull a whole thread when there are only a few objectionable posts? Why not just pull the reported posts instead? 

Exercising too much control over a debate is like, I don't know...limiting the press to asking only five questions a day (including two in French).


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Nothing vague about it. He admits to having been there and having been naked.
> 
> At the time he denied sexual services were received. He hasn't maintained or clarified that stance. He's guilty of leaving this issue open by not directly addressing it. He's free to make this less vague.


what?

so if you're innocent you have to continuously clarify you're innocent? kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Nothing vague about it. He admits to having been there and having been naked.
> 
> At the time he denied sexual services were received. He hasn't maintained or clarified that stance. He's guilty of leaving this issue open by not directly addressing it. He's free to make this less vague.


I heard his wife Olivia talking about the incident on the radio, which happened 15 years ago, by the way, and if she can leave it in the past, I don't see why it should bother anybody else. Harper must be pretty desperate to dredge up this American-style character assasination at the last minute.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Why are the Conservatives being tagged with this? It seems the Liberals have more to benefit from it. In any case I doubt any party was directly responsible. It looks more likely to be a police officer.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

i-rui said:


> what?
> 
> so if you're innocent you have to continuously clarify you're innocent? kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?


The burden of proof in law is not the same as the burden for public judgement. I have no issue with thinking he actually did this in probability. Would I convict him if I was on a jury? No.

So to answer your question, yes.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> I find the censorship offensive, Dave, don't you? Why pull a whole thread when there are only a few objectionable posts? Why not just pull the reported posts instead?
> 
> Exercising too much control over a debate is like, I don't know...limiting the press to asking only five questions a day (including two in French).


I agree but I am confused to what is particularly objectionable. If anything I thought my cartoons would lighten things up.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Nothing vague about it. He admits to having been there and having been naked.


 What is this obsession with Jack's nakedness?

Every detail is this interesting? Take a cold shower for goodness sakes.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> I heard his wife Olivia talking about the incident on the radio, which happened 15 years ago, by the way, and if she can leave it in the past, I don't see why it should bother anybody else. Harper must be pretty desperate to dredge up this American-style character assasination at the last minute.


+1

It says much about how desperate the Conservatives and supporters are.

Harper couldn't be more negative today.

Layton couldn't be more positive.

You win when the attacks against the person begins and arguing the points of your position stops. 

Layton is lightyears ahead. The Conservative are begging Liberal for votes and attacking Layton personally.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why is everyone accusing Harper of this? Clearly details of this rub-and-tug debacle were supplied by the ex-cop. The Sun could not have learned of it otherwise.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Leak of police notes in Layton report probed - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Vandave said:


> The burden of proof in law is not the same as the burden for public judgement. I have no issue with thinking he actually did this in probability. Would I convict him if I was on a jury? No.
> 
> So to answer your question, yes.


It is not illegal to get a massage. I get one quite often. So do my wife and kids. Perhaps he didn't check out this particular business very well, but there's nothing remotely wrong with massage therapy.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I agree but I am confused to what is particularly objectionable. If anything I thought my cartoons would lighten things up.


Sorry, I missed the cartoons in question. Any post can be objectionable if three people report it, from what I understand. That's a fair standard, I suppose, but I think pulling a whole thread is draconian. Some people have no sense of ha-ha when it comes to politics.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I love it. Dozens of EhMacers were leaping for joy about WikiLeaks. But this? This is ba-a-a-a-a-a-d leak!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

BigDL said:


> +1
> 
> It says much about how desperate the Conservatives and supporters are.
> 
> ...


Agreed. Anything less than a majority is essentially a loss for Harper. I love it when reporters ask him if he'll let somebody else try for the leadership if he fails to get a majority again. I'd like to see a few more non-Conservative wins pop up in Alberta too like pimples on a teenager. Irritation can bring out someone's true character.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I love it. Dozens of EhMacers were leaping for joy about WikiLeaks. But this? This is ba-a-a-a-a-a-d leak!


difference is personal information with no public good at stake vs corporate/government information with a definite stake in public good.

as a supposed *libertarian* i'd hope you know the difference.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Why is everyone accusing Harper of this? Clearly details of this rub-and-tug debacle were supplied by the ex-cop. The Sun could not have learned of it otherwise.


And who controls the police? Wasn't it the police who escorted the young lady from the Harper rally as well? Perhaps I missed something.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

<rant> This is beyond infantile. Layton gets involved in something,... what... can we describe it as... vaguely suspicious... in 1996. 1996!!!!!!!!! (and yes, I'll say vaguely suspicious. If you suddenly found out that your family doctor was selling narcotics off the books and police told you in the waiting room you'd be SHOCKED and frankly very cooperative with the police).

So, no let's assume Layton is a pervert. A cop who suspected Layton MAY have solicited sex from a massage parlour was just being a nice guy and what, let it "slide" because Layton was completely cooperative and gave him his name and address? No, better yet, he's wracked by his conscience for years and years. Does he tell the public for the good of Canada? Does he protect the sanctity of Canadian politics? Nope. Better sit on it. For 15 years. Not 7 years, when Layton took the reign of the NDP. 8 years (election), 10 years (election), 12 years (election). And now, lest this pervert become the official opposition of Canada, better let the truth out! For the good of Canada! For the children!!! Even a whiff of something close to indecency! Won't someone think of the children!!!!????? A politician got naked... um... ever?!?!?! Eeeek!

Opportunist. Maybe not a bad person, but a slimy choice. Maybe something that will hang on his conscience.

The truth of this story doesn't even matter to him. Put yourself in the same position. If you honestly believed Layton had done something indecent, worthy of a good old fashioned public shaming, when would you try to expose him as a pervert? Take it to the police.... no wait, whoops you are the police. You have every opportunity to follow up on suspected wrong doing. Perhaps when it happened? Or once you retired? When your conscience had clawed at you and you felt you could sit on this dirty secret no longer?

Sit on it until the weekend after the 4th election he's run in and, as reported by the media, the one who may perhaps be the most valuable to his career? Really? Not strategic? REALLY?

Garbage. I'm ashamed that an ex-member of law enforcement would be willing to exploit an embarrassing situation for political gain rather than actively investigate him if indeed there was some suspicion of Layton doing something wrong. I've had a few beers. I'm a bit more upset than usual by this. Perhaps irrationally so. But I'm relatively sure I'd even laugh these accusations off regardless of who was being accused if the situation were exactly the same. Harper included.</rant>


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

If anyone is interested this is from twitter.com/jonkay

jonkay For those who care, someone tried to shop me the Layton-massage story 2 yrs ago (without docs). It was a Liberal fixer
about 8 hours ago


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

cap10subtext said:


> …If you honestly believed Layton had done something indecent, worthy of a good old fashioned public shaming, when would you try to expose him as a pervert? Take it to the police.... no wait, whoops you are the police. You have every opportunity to follow up on suspected wrong doing. Perhaps when it happened? Or once you retired? When your conscience had clawed at you and you felt you could sit on this dirty secret no longer?
> 
> Sit on it until the weekend after the 4th election he's run in and, as reported by the media, the one who may perhaps be the most valuable to his career? Really? Not strategic? REALLY?
> 
> Garbage. I'm ashamed that an ex-member of law enforcement would be willing to exploit an embarrassing situation for political gain rather than actively investigate him if indeed there was some suspicion of Layton doing something wrong…


It's not the cop who suddenly remembered this detail that we need to be concerned about. Who else knew? Who perhaps arranged for the guy to suddenly bring this up when he could have done so several elections ago? Layton was not a threat before, certainly not powerful enough to be leader of the official opposition or even (gasp) prime minister. Who would have arranged for the guy to speak up now? 

Who has the most to lose this election?

Iggy? He's been in power for, what, a couple years? Would he be that concerned about losing his status as leader of the official opposition, with all the honour that brings? Who has the most to lose? None of this would ever see the light of the day if someone were not extremely worried about not only not getting a majority, but perhaps losing his title entirely. Now, who would have _that_ kind of motive? Someone who admires American-style politics, perhaps?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suspect this smear is going to back fire big time.....slime politics smacks of desperation and Karl Rove and may actually firm up the NDP support.



> *The Toronto Police have asked the Ontario Provincial Police to conduct a criminal breach of trust investigation* into the leak of official police notes cited in a Sun Media report about NDP leader Jack Layton, CBC News has learned.
> 
> It comes after Layton and his wife, NDP candidate Olivia Chow, denied any wrongdoing following the report Friday that Layton was interviewed by police in 1996 at a Toronto massage parlour.
> 
> ...


exactly

Leak of police notes in Layton report probed - Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Harper pleads with Liberal supporters to vote Tory to stop NDP*
> Published On Sat Apr 30 2011EmailPrint (183)
> 
> Robert Benzie
> ...


continues
Harper pleads with Liberal supporters to vote Tory to stop NDP - thestar.com

pardon my laughter....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Separately, a senior CUPE economist reported that NDP governments in Canada – which have only been elected provincially – have a better track record for balancing the books than Conservative and Liberal government*s.


More lies from Harper - the profligate spendthrift shouldnot point fingers.
The NDP has a good track record....

NDP's fiery finance critic Tom Mulcair poised to take centre stage - The Globe and Mail


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> What is this obsession with Jack's nakedness?
> 
> Every detail is this interesting? Take a cold shower for goodness sakes.


I don't understand either. I've gone for many massages, and generally you strip down and are under towels. This is pretty much standard. I go to my gym's health area they have great RMTs, I'm a little unsure about finding some other place where, you have no idea what's happening in the other room.

Anyway, for me, this isn't going to be solved with forum posts. it seems this tidbit was cleverly tossed mere days before the election, maybe rob ford was horrified at the prospect of dealing with PM Layton, who knows. It's too bad someone whined to shut down my election thread. I was glad to see it successfully approaching 200 pages, and for a political thread, I didn't think it was bad at all. But that's just me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> difference is personal information with no public good at stake vs corporate/government information with a definite stake in public good.
> 
> as a supposed *libertarian* i'd hope you know the difference.


I didn't support wikileaks to begin with. Just as y'all trusted Assange to decide what HE thought was for the pubic good, and so did this whistleblower. Layton is entirely a creature of government.



fjnmusic said:


> And who controls the police? Wasn't it the police who escorted the young lady from the Harper rally as well? Perhaps I missed something.


So the police decided to finger...er... incriminate Layton and then called in an OPP investigation on itself?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> More lies from Harper - the profligate spendthrift shouldnot point fingers.
> The NDP has a good track record....


That's right--all you need to do is to ramp up taxes to meet your profligate spending. Simple!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> That's right--all you need to do is to ramp up taxes to meet your profligate spending. Simple!


Macdoc hasnt heard about the NDP record over here in BC. We turned into a have-not Province under their leadership, something British Columibians were quite embarrased about.

They abolutely ravaged the economy out here. They Destroyed many lives and split up many famalies as people had to flee in look of work.

And its the same group running the show now.

Please people, never again. :-(


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That's right--all you need to do is to ramp up taxes to meet your profligate spending. Simple!


or, you can spend as much as the ndp, in fact likely more given Harper's actual record, and drop the rich's taxes convincing regular Canadians they have to wait until your unicorn dances and they magically make the deficit go away, but more likely, since the money has to come from somewhere, it'll end up growing the federal debt, and the budget won't be balanced. 

Too bad for the Canadians who have to wait next in line for tax breaks because we're getting trickle down economics foisted on us, once again.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Or at least stop cutting them to welfare corporations and bring them in at the OECD average instead of lining the pockets of the wealthy.
Most citizens the world over are willing to pay reasonable taxes if their tax money results in quality services.
Large resources corporations as will Australia and other nations pay the 25% or more corporate tax as part of the rights to exploit those national resources.

Not in Canada you say? Pity.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Macdoc hasnt heard about the NDP record over here in BC. We turned into a have-not Province under their leadership, something British Columibians were quite embarrased about.
> 
> They abolutely ravaged the economy out here. They Destroyed many lives and split up many famalies as people had to flee in look of work.
> 
> ...


Absolutely true. Bingo-gate, the 'fudge-it budget' ... all those fun times. About the only person with integrity was Mike Harcourt and he fell on his sword over the Bingo-gate thing.

The Fast Cat fiasco summarizes it for me: spending tax payer dollars to 'create' an industry (with promises of mostly union jobs), with absolutely zero fiscal control. What was the quote from Glen Clark? "Shovelling money out of the back of trucks."? or something like that. 

Never again.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Its just so simple. We just have to tax our way to prosperity. That probably explains the steller NDP economic record. Oh wait...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Its just so simple. We just have to tax our way to prosperity. That probably explains the steller NDP economic record. Oh wait...


It doesn't matter if the economy goes down the dumper, Vandave. As long as there's plenty of public housing to go around and people are taxed up the wazoo, the budget is balanced and MacDoc is happy.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Absolutely true. Bingo-gate, the 'fudge-it budget' ... all those fun times. About the only person with integrity was Mike Harcourt and he fell on his sword over the Bingo-gate thing.
> 
> The Fast Cat fiasco summarizes it for me: spending tax payer dollars to 'create' an industry (with promises of mostly union jobs), with absolutely zero fiscal control. What was the quote from Glen Clark? "Shovelling money out of the back of trucks."? or something like that.
> 
> Never again.


Yes, I will not forget because I love this place too much. They are the exact same group of idealogues as before but with a more charismatic guy in charge. 

As high as Layton might be in the polls, it wont translate into seats, nor will it hold for long.

Truly a scary bunch of people.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

So, is the Mayor going to reopen the thread? He must have been out late.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> That's right--all you need to do is to ramp up taxes to meet your profligate spending. Simple!


Right, the Tories have shown us the way! They've reduced the GST by 2% and then threw us into a $50b deficit blind. One day we're fine, the next day, oops. And let's not forget, 2% of that 50b was the g8/20 spending. And for the 2% they lowered they made up for with the HST making it easier to add taxes to haircuts, movie tickets...
Corporate tax cuts? Whopptie doo. You think that's getting passed on to the consumer? Many Canadians like myself are not against taxes, we're against paying them when we see evidence of wasteful, dishonest spending. We want a solid healthcare system, we support public education, and want to see strong social programs, arts, and media, that are proven effective in the field.

I am not convinced the Tories have drastically reduced our taxes or the size of our government. They've had their shot, they weren't morally above the temptation to porkbarrell or bend the rules so their party financiers could double dip. So the rhetoric is dead, long live their track record.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Yes, I will not forget because I love this place too much. They are the exact same group of idealogues as before but with a more charismatic guy in charge.


The appeal of the NDP: it will reach into OTHER people's pockets to give you what YOU want. No special interest is too small. The whole ponzi scheme collapses when it's clear that there aren't enough pockets to pick--and that each dollar is worth about 50 cents after the handling fee.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The appeal of the NDP: it will reach into OTHER people's pockets to give you what YOU want. No special interest is too small. The whole ponzi scheme collapses when it's clear that there aren't enough pockets to pick--and that each dollar is worth about 50 cents after the handling fee.


The appeal of the Tories: it will let anyone reach into OTHER people's backyards to give you what YOU want. No project is too damaging. The whole ponzi scheme collapses when it's clear that there aren't enough resources to go around--and that each dollar is worth about 50 cents after you clean up the mess.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

cap10subtext said:


> The appeal of the Tories: it will reach into OTHER people's backyards to give you what YOU want. No project is too damaging. The whole ponzi scheme collapses when it's clear that there aren't enough resources to go around--and that each dollar is worth about 50 cents after you clean up the mess.


meanwhile, assume Canadians will buy this, 'we'll get around to you folks once we're done raping the tax system for the very wealthy. Oh yeah, the wealthy, if we're real nice to them, may, may give a little back with a few jobs.'.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> meanwhile, assume Canadians will buy this, 'we'll get around to you folks once we're done raping the tax system for the very wealthy. Oh yeah, the wealthy, if we're real nice to them, may, may give a little back with a few jobs.'.


That's right. The NDP will level the playing field by impoverishing everyone.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> meanwhile, assume Canadians will buy this, 'we'll get around to you folks once we're done raping the tax system for the very wealthy. Oh yeah, the wealthy, if we're real nice to them, may, may give a little back with a few jobs.'.


The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay no federal tax. Getting screwed they are.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> meanwhile, assume Canadians will buy this, 'we'll get around to you folks once we're done raping the tax system for the very wealthy. Oh yeah, the wealthy, if we're real nice to them, may, may give a little back with a few jobs.'.


GT, don't you know? The poor don't matter! They contribute little to nothing whilst leeching off precious tax dollars! Them and their entitlements... bah! They simply don't understand how important the rich are! How much more valuable they are both as citizens as well as humans.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay no federal tax. Getting screwed they are.


Its important to gear the resources of the nation to serving them, VanDave. Food, shelter and medical care simply aren't enough.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That's right. The NDP will level the playing field by impoverishing everyone.


impoverishing everyone?

nonsense. Your position seems to rely merely, on extremes. Everyone will die, everyone will be lining up for soup kitchens, the rats will eat better than us, that sort of thing.

My disagreement is over the need to give all the huge tax breaks to -only- the very wealthy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay no federal tax. Getting screwed they are.


One merely needs to reference the tax pie chart, so clearly show the irrelevance of your cherry picked data.

I'm talking about the middle class, the hard working family income earners, I don't believe I've referenced the very bottom, who don't have much to begin with.




mrjimmy said:


> GT, don't you know? The poor don't matter! They contribute little to nothing whilst leeching off precious tax dollars! Them and their entitlements... bah! They simply don't understand how important the rich are! How much more valuable they are both as citizens as well as humans.


They trot out the very bottom of the income brackets because it's the only way to defend their position.

The truth is, with the unnecessary cutting of the top wealthy in this country, no tax breaks until, well someday when the unicorn magically balances the budget, and with soaring deficits, there is only 2 possibilities. The middle class will bear the full brunt of the tax burden, while receiving little to no real tax relief, while having all their services from healthcare to anything else they rely on slashed drastically, or, continuing to run sky high deficits, because, maintaining services such as healthcare while gutting tax revenues the money has to come from somewhere.

We learned this the hard way, after trudeau, and then mulroney and his conservatives left us near bankrupt. At leat mulroney saw that he needed tax revenue to pay for things and welcomed us to the gst.

Harper would have us believe, we can have our services, hand obscene tax breaks to the rich, and balance the budget. And people buy this...


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Vandave said:


> The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay no federal tax. Getting screwed they are.


Gosh and all I have to do to avoid paying taxes is live below the poverty line!??!! Sign me up!

You talking about the difference between taxing corporations who often end up spending millions on advertisements, branding exercises, bonuses, and other such nonsense associated with an aggressive growth economy. VS the impoverished Canadians who have to make a choice between healthy food for their children or spaghettios 4 nights a week.

Tax no one and abolish the government? Privatize everything from highways to drinking water? Cause that's going so well elsewhere in the world. Corporate greed turns into white collar organize crime and only the consumer suffers.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Its important to gear the resources of the nation to serving them, VanDave. Food, shelter and medical care simply aren't enough.


It just blows me away how non-contibuting people can feel they are getting screwed over.

I think most losers just have that attitude though. Personal shortcomings are always the fault of somebody else. The NDP seem to play into that.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Vandave said:


> It just blows me away how non-contibuting people can feel they are getting screwed over.
> 
> I think most losers just have that attitude though. Personal shortcomings are always the fault of somebody else. The NDP seem to play into that.


So, what seriously, do you think people are are deployed from pods at the age of 21 with a blank slate and a can do attitude?

Just because someone got a raw deal in life doesn't mean their children should be forced into drugs, crime, and prostitution.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

cap10subtext said:


> Gosh and all I have to do to avoid paying taxes is live below the poverty line!??!! Sign me up!
> 
> You talking about the difference between taxing corporations who often end up spending millions on advertisements, branding exercises, bonuses, and other such nonsense associated with an aggressive growth economy. VS the impoverished Canadians who have to make a choice between healthy food for their children or spaghettios 4 nights a week.
> 
> Tax no one and abolish the government? Privatize everything from highways to drinking water? Cause that's going so well elsewhere in the world. Corporate greed turns into white collar organize crime and only the consumer suffers.


Oh great. Not only do you want to take corporate money, you want to tell them how to spend it.

Most corporations in Canada have less than 20 employees. Its tough enough trying to run a business without government getting in the way and taking all your profit. I would know. At some point I just stop hiring people. But I'm sure some government program will pick them up.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

cap10subtext said:


> Just because someone got a raw deal in life doesn't mean their children should be forced into drugs, crime, and prostitution.


Exactly. Gotta love having choices in a free society.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm sorry, but a percent or 2 corporate tax cut, isn't going to make me hire more people. And neither will it for most other corporations.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

And FYI, large corporations have the highest average pay in the economy. They also are able to offer employees opportunity for career growth in a way that smaller businesses cannot.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> It just blows me away how non-contibuting people can feel they are getting screwed over.
> 
> I think most losers just have that attitude though. Personal shortcomings are always the fault of somebody else. The NDP seem to play into that.


You can live on that anger your entire life and contribute nothing in return.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I'm sorry, but a percent or 2 corporate tax cut, isn't going to make me hire more people. And neither will it for most other corporations.


On an individual level it may or may not. Just like an extra 10 cents on your morning coffee. But on aggregate it does.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Layton is one of those people who is perfectly groomed to telegraph instructions to businesses, because he has never been sullied by any more than working as a politician or academic. A lifetime of rarefied non-experience that helps him to understand both business and the plight of the underclass. He knows what it's like because he studied it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You can live on that anger your entire life and contribute nothing in return.


I see them every time at the polling station when I volunteer. The conservatives and liberals are just regular middle class people and a normal sampling of our society. Half the NDP volunteers are overweight cows that can barely walk from their car to the school. The other half represent other radical special interest groups. Both groups have massive chips on their shoulders and they feel like society has screwed them over. I talk to these people. It's facinating and scary at the same time. 

Ask not what your country can do for you....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> And FYI, large corporations have the highest average pay in the economy. They also are able to offer employees opportunity for career growth in a way that smaller businesses cannot.


FYI. Irrelevant.

Lowering corp tax rates a percent or 2 WILL NOT create jobs. They don't sit around corp board meetings deciding to hire thousands more because there's a tax cut of a percent. That's simplistic, and wrong.

Also, FYI, small businesses are the real job creators.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I see them every time at the polling station when I volunteer. The conservatives and liberals are just regular middle class people and a normal sampling of our society. Half the NDP volunteers are overweight cows that can barely walk from their car to the school. The other half represent other radical special interest groups. Both groups have massive chips on their shoulders and they feel like society has screwed them over. I talk to these people. It's facinating and scary at the same time.
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you....


You quite clearly have a serious chip on YOUR shoulder. I don't see the need to point out all the fat conservatives I've seen, or any other parties, I think you need to calm down, not be so angry as to have to express such hatred and anger.

Seriously, the "fat cow" line was really over the line, for anyone. No need for this sort of anger.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> FYI. Irrelevant.
> 
> Lowering corp tax rates a percent or 2 WILL NOT create jobs. They don't sit around corp board meetings deciding to hire thousands more because there's a tax cut of a percent. That's simplistic, and wrong.
> 
> Also, FYI, small businesses are the real job creators.


So when does the golden goose stop laying eggs? If 2 percent has nod effect then why not 5? 10? 20? 50?

Hey, free money, right?


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Oh great. Not only do you want to take corporate money, you want to tell them how to spend it.


Not both. Either. Either collect taxes in order to protect workers with EI, suitable healthcare, and public programs that ensure you aren't polluting your own workers out of house and home OR the regulations should be in place so that when you start your company you are following guidelines to make sure your business isn't damaging the environment.

Don't kid yourself. There has always been regulation. Free market economies practice monopoly busting. 



> Most corporations in Canada have less than 20 employees. Its tough enough trying to run a business without government getting in the way and taking all your profit. I would know. At some point I just stop hiring people. But I'm sure some government program will pick them up.


Until another company, which still realizes Canada is a great place to do business, opens their doors and receives tax credits for all the jobs it creates. Sounds like a plan.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> You quite clearly have a serious chip on YOUR shoulder. I don't see the need to point out all the fat conservatives I've seen, or any other parties, I think you need to calm down, not be so angry as to have to express such hatred and anger.
> 
> Seriously, the "fat cow" line was really over the line, for anyone. No need for this sort of anger.


I say this with no anger or malice. It's an observation that I see time and time again. And yes, I always question myself as to confirmation bias. Look for yourself but thats my experience.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> So when does the golden goose stop laying eggs? If 2 percent has nod effect then why not 5? 10? 20? 50?
> 
> Hey, free money, right?


Always the extremes. I never said 10, 20, or 30. No one has, nor will.



Vandave said:


> I say this with no anger or malice. It's an observation that I see time and time again. And yes, I always question myself as to confirmation bias. Look for yourself but thats my experience.


I have. And I don't think obesity favours any political affiliation at all. Go visit the US for a while, and see for yourself. In fact, truth be told, I find in my circles the more left leaning types tend to be healthier, fitter. But I would never assume this to be in any way, representative of the rest of the population, and that outburst from you shows a real hatred and disgust of anyone ndp, I'd suggest seeing someone about that.

It was a little over the line.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Vandave said:


> So when does the golden goose stop laying eggs? If 2 percent has nod effect then why not 5? 10? 20? 50?
> 
> Hey, free money, right?


Hey! Hyperbolize much? 

The current rate is based on what an attractive margin would be for companies to do business here compared to elsewhere in the world. 2.5% is acceptable for their platform, they don't feel the corporate tax cuts had the effect the tories said it would so let's put in something else. I'm pretty confident that the new job tax credit will compensate for most of the issues you outlined (new hires or pay taxes?) so yes, it sucks, we don't want to pay more taxes, but we pay money to our government for infrastructure and social systems, more here, less there. If they fail to meet the needs of Canadians because their system doesn't work, then goodbye, time for someone new. But don't kid yourself... death and taxes.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Always the extremes. I never said 10, 20, or 30. No one has, nor will.
> 
> 
> I have. And I don't think obesity favours any political affiliation at all. Go visit the US for a while, and see for yourself. In fact, truth be told, I find in my circles the more left leaning types tend to be healthier, fitter. But I would never assume this to be in any way, representative of the rest of the population, and that outburst from you shows a real hatred and disgust of anyone ndp, I'd suggest seeing someone about that.
> ...


Well tell what number this magic goose stops laying golden eggs? It clearly doesn't follow the rules of supply and demand and basic economics, so 50 percent seemed reasonable under this context.

Democrats are far to the right of the NDP. Different group altogether. The conservatives are much closer in idealogy to dems.

They did almost destroy this Province so I will admit to lingering animosity.

Ill take some photos on election night. We shall see.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The conservatives here are much closer the republicans. They have similar policies, and seem to agree in many areas. The Dems are indeed further right to the ndp, but saying Harper is closer to the dems than the rupubs, nope.

And I don't care what pictures you take on election night. I'm not interested in people who call others "fat cows" for any politically motivated reason.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

cap10subtext said:


> Until another company, which still realizes Canada is a great place to do business, opens their doors and receives tax credits for all the jobs it creates. Sounds like a plan.


This doesn't sound like a plan at all. What you favour is essentially a state in which corporations employ unnecessary people as a form of welfare. How many Canadians are still employed by previous tax credit schemes? These aren't real productive jobs--they're jobs in which other Canadians are taxed to pay the salaries (the tax credit).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This doesn't sound like a plan at all. What you favour is essentially a state in which corporations employ unnecessary people as a form of welfare. How many Canadians are still employed by previous tax credit schemes? These aren't real productive jobs--they're jobs in which other Canadians are taxed to pay the salaries (the tax credit).


well, if we have to be forced to compete with other countries like the US who offer plenty of tax credits to corporations in incentives, we're just gonna have to pony up then or all the corporations are gonna take their ball and go somewhere else then eh?
:baby:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I recommend some of you watch this documentary. Its amazing. It will help to dispell some of the socialist economic policies spouted by the likes of the NDP.

Commanding Heights: Home | on PBS


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> well, if we have to be forced to compete with other countries like the US who offer plenty of tax credits to corporations in incentives, we're just gonna have to pony up then or all the corporations are gonna take their ball and go somewhere else then eh?
> :baby:


Why do you keep sucking on that thing?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Why do you keep sucking on that thing?


Thats what 'he' said.

<----


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Vandave: You're crossing the line. I'm referring to your comments regarding the physical attributes of people who subscribe to a particular political affiliation. Totally uncalled for.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mleh said:


> vandave: You're crossing the line. I'm referring to your comments regarding the physical attributes of people who subscribe to a particular political affiliation. Totally uncalled for.


+1


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Vandave: You're crossing the line. I'm referring to your comments regarding the physical attributes of people who subscribe to a particular political affiliation. Totally uncalled for.


Would calling many of them slobs be going too far if I were to take back the cow comment?

Either way their supporters definitely have a higher portion of people who barely have the motivation to keep themselves together.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MLeh said:


> Absolutely true. Bingo-gate, the 'fudge-it budget' ... all those fun times. About the only person with integrity was Mike Harcourt and he fell on his sword over the Bingo-gate thing.
> 
> The Fast Cat fiasco summarizes it for me: spending tax payer dollars to 'create' an industry (with promises of mostly union jobs), with absolutely zero fiscal control. What was the quote from Glen Clark? "Shovelling money out of the back of trucks."? or something like that.
> 
> Never again.


people in Ontario might say the same thing about the last conservative majority to run our province in to the ground. they also cooked the books for their budgets. Their "common sense revolution" saw them closing hospitals and firing thousands of nurses. Their service cuts didn't stop there, cut backs also affected the way the province tested water and people *literally died* as a result.

Their "fiscal prudence" saw them fill in subway tunnels that cost millions of dollars (and which toronto now will spend billions to dig out again) as well as selling the 407 to a foreign corporation for a song.

The only ones to benefit from their reign were corporations and the wealthy. Everyone else got screwed. This is pretty much the M.O. with all conservative governments.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> people in Ontario might say the same thing about the last conservative majority to run our province in to the ground. they also cooked the books for their budgets. Their "common sense revolution" saw them closing hospitals and firing thousands of nurses. Their service cuts didn't stop there, cut backs also affected the way the province tested water and people *literally died* as a result.
> 
> Their "fiscal prudence" saw them fill in subway tunnels that cost millions of dollars (and which toronto now will spend billions to dig out again) as well as selling the 407 to a foreign corporation for a song.
> 
> The only ones to benefit from their reign were corporations and the wealthy. Everyone else got screwed. This is pretty much the M.O. with all conservative governments.


Funny how an economic renaissance looks to some people. Well, Dalton McGuinty is getting things back the way they were before the Common Sense Revolution. The despair is already setting in.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Would calling many of them slobs be going too far if I were to take back the cow comment?
> 
> Either way their supporters definitely have a higher portion of people who barely have the motivation to keep themselves together.


just going by the leaders, Harper seems to be the chunkiest.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

i-rui said:


> just going by the leaders, Harper seems to be the chunkiest.


John Baird and Jason Kenney don't look like they've seen the inside of a gym in quite awhile.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> John Baird and Jason Kenney don't look like they've seen the inside of a gym in quite awhile.


If I was PM I would make regular exercise for my MPs mandatory.

Post exercise massages would be optional.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> If I was PM I would make regular exercise for my MPs mandatory.
> 
> Post exercise massages would be optional.


Free Kleenex as executive perk.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> If I was PM I would make regular exercise for my MPs mandatory.


How very dictatorial of you.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Post exercise massages would be optional.





MacFury said:


> Free Kleenex as executive perk.


Wow. This Layton non-story is really eating you guys up! Must be getting a bit nervous.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> How very dictatorial of you.


Hardly. Being an MP is optional.

In contrast, the NDP has affirmative action which is discriminatory. Choosing your sex, sexual orientation and race are not optional.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Wow. This Layton non-story is really eating you guys up! Must be getting a bit nervous.


has turned into quite the jack-o-thon for them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Wow. This Layton non-story is really eating you guys up! Must be getting a bit nervous.


The story is amusing as hell, for sure.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The story is amusing as hell, for sure.


I agree. Thinking about those Sun 'reporters' scurrying around desperate to come up with something... _anything_ to try to discredit the huge surge in popularity of Jack and The NDP.

The low brow desperateness was quite amusing for sure!

Too bad it isn't having any effect. Well, other than making SunTV and by default The Conservatives look low brow and desperate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Be honest, mrjimmy, you have no idea what effect it is having or will have. Anything you say at this point is just a projection of what you hope to see happen.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Be honest, mrjimmy, you have no idea what effect it is having or will have. Anything you say at this point is just a projection of what you hope to see happen.


All we have are polls MF and they remain unchanged.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

actually, they showed the polls today, the conclusion was, it appeared to have helped Jack. The gap with the conservative narrowed further.

I think I alluded to that before and that set off a hellabaloo. Something about zinging.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Hardly. Being an MP is optional.
> 
> In contrast, the NDP has affirmative action which is discriminatory. Choosing your sex, sexual orientation and race are not optional.


Misinformation, much?


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> This doesn't sound like a plan at all. What you favour is essentially a state *in which corporations employ unnecessary people as a form of welfare. *How many Canadians are still employed by previous tax credit schemes? These aren't real productive jobs--they're jobs in which other Canadians are taxed to pay the salaries (the tax credit).


That doesn't even make any sense. Corporations are going to hire people if they have work to maintain them, not just because they have excess money laying around. Hiring people JUST to get a tax credit is like hiring a monkey to squeeze your orange juice in the morning. Pointless. Vandave suggested that increasing the corporate tax rate was going to cost him the ability to hire more people. Tax credit for new hires seems like a good incentive but if you don't need to hire more people it's a moot point.

More to the point, if a larger business outsources jobs then who's benefiting from those "jobs" then? A 2.5% increase in corporate taxes isn't going to bring the Canadian economy to a screeching halt and it will certainly help Canadians more than a Company who outsources all of their labour.

It's better during a time of economic recovery to lower taxes for small businesses who hire locally anyways.



> How many Canadians are still employed by previous tax credit schemes?


You tell me.

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/oilsands/upload/CANADIAN_OIL_SANDS_1-PAGER.pdf


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Be honest, mrjimmy, you have no idea what effect it is having or will have. Anything you say at this point is just a projection of what you hope to see happen.


I have a hunch that this is not going to have much of an effect, but we won't know until Monday.

The Conservatives in particular have been long-criticized for their use of attack ads. The NDP are not perceived to use that kind of strategy, or certainly not as heavily, and most of Layton's pull is that most people seem to think that he's a refreshingly nice and pragmatic guy in the midst of all the dirty mudslinging political business. It's hard to sling mud at the nice guy and not look dirty for doing it.

My feeling is that the only people who see this as anything more than a desperate smear campaign are those that would never vote NDP anyway. Those who would vote NDP are more than likely tired of attacking.... I remember one G&M article characterizing this as (paraphrasing) the election of the 3 angry men versus the sunny smiling guy. Anyone whose tired of the angry men are tired of the angry men tactics of attacking and smearing.

But again, we shall see how this plays out in the polls.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Tomorrow will all hinge on if the recent NDP "converts" actually go out to vote, if they actually vote NDP when they get to the polling station, and in what ridings i.e. voter distribution/vote splitting.

There are so many variables right now that I think if we were all being honest none off us have any idea how things are going to turn out, just wishful expectations.

Cripes even the various pollsters can't agree and they haven't since the beginning of the campaign. The recent surge in the polls for the NDP really means only one thing for sure... it is too close to call with any level of accuracy and we will all just have to wait and see until late tomorrow night.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"But again, we shall see how this plays out in the polls." True, Sonal, as well as in the voting booths across our fine country. Paix, mon amie.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Tomorrow will all hinge on if the recent NDP "converts" actually go out to vote, if they actually vote NDP when they get to the polling station, and in what ridings i.e. voter distribution/vote splitting.
> 
> There are so many variables right now that I think if we were all being honest none off us have any idea how things are going to turn out, just wishful expectations.
> 
> Cripes even the various pollsters can't agree and they haven't since the beginning of the campaign. The recent surge in the polls for the NDP really means only one thing for sure... it is too close to call with any level of accuracy and we will all just have to wait and see until late tomorrow night.


Agreed, screature, except we here in NL will have to wait until early Tuesday morning for the results from BC. Such is Life. It shall be worth the wait. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Agreed, screature, except we here in NL will have to wait until early Tuesday morning for the results from BC. Such is Life. It shall be worth the wait. Paix, mon ami.


Lol... you know I was going to say Tuesday morning but I figured enough of the BC polls would have reported by midnight your time for a credible projection to have been made.... so I had considered yourself and other Newfoundlander's and Labradorian's.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

For what looked like yet another boring repeat of an election call that changed nothing except the pocketbooks of the media companies running the political adverts, this has surely gotten interesting. Democracy is for the people, by the people and it's high time the elected members remembered this. Every party has been dragged through the coals. With luck, they will finally realize we elect them to work together, not against each other. Enough already!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey JW good to see you around....takes a revolution I guess 

Happy May Day


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

used to be jwoodget said:


> For what looked like yet another boring repeat of an election call that changed nothing except the pocketbooks of the media companies running the political adverts, this has surely gotten interesting. Democracy is for the people, by the people and it's high time the elected members remembered this. Every party has been dragged through the coals. With luck, they will finally realize we elect them to work together, not against each other. Enough already!


I elect them not to work together, but to defeat the ideas of the other parties.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I elect them not to work together, but to defeat the ideas of the other parties.


I would rather they work together.

Like many Canadians I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. No party seems to be offering this.

If they work together, there's a better chance at reaching something that approximates what I would want out of government.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I would rather they work together.
> 
> Like many Canadians I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. No party seems to be offering this.
> 
> If they work together, there's a better chance at reaching something that approximates what I would want out of government.


Coalitions of the sort you describe usually wind up with expensive social engineering schemes that have nothing to do with social liberalism. Social liberalism at the government level should cost next-to-nothing.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Lol... you know I was going to say Tuesday morning but I figured enough of the BC polls would have reported by midnight your time for a credible projection to have been made.... so I had considered yourself and other Newfoundlander's and Labradorian's.


Midnight here is 7:30PM in BC. Polls don't close here until 8PM. When do they close there???


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> For what looked like yet another boring repeat of an election call that changed nothing except the pocketbooks of the media companies running the political adverts, this has surely gotten interesting. Democracy is for the people, by the people and it's high time the elected members remembered this. Every party has been dragged through the coals. With luck, they will finally realize we elect them to work together, not against each other. Enough already!


Amen, Brother. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Hey JW good to see you around....takes a revolution I guess
> 
> Happy May Day


Happy May Day to you as well, MacDoc. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Coalitions of the sort you describe usually wind up with expensive social engineering schemes that have nothing to do with social liberalism. Social liberalism at the government level should cost next-to-nothing.


I'm always wary of that 'should' word. That is 'should' cost next to nothing implies that it typically doesn't. I'm pragmatic enough to be generally okay with that.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> I would rather they work together.
> 
> Like many Canadians I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. No party seems to be offering this.
> 
> If they work together, there's a better chance at reaching something that approximates what I would want out of government.


Once again, Amen, Sister Sonal. Paix, mon amie.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, I am voting tomorrow in the hopes of crushing the ideas and the aspirations of my political foes. Should the party I vote for win a clear majority, I will exhort them to skip the spectacle of pretending to work with the losers.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

If you examine the results of the last election in 2008, you will see that NDP support was spread out right across the country, while Conservative support was concentrated in three Western provinces. Like it or not, the Cons are more of a regional party, in line with their Alliance and Reform roots and it's a pretty tough image to shake. The NDP, rather surprisingly, is perceived as a more national party, especially considering their surge in popularity in Quebec. This is something Harper and most westerners fail to realize: you cannot win a majority government in Canada without Quebec. They account for about a quarter of the total population of Canada, with the Western provinces representing maybe a third. The rest is Ontario and the maritimes, with a handful of seats in the Northern territories. The Cons with Harper-Reform baggage has about as much of a shot at a majority government as the Bloc Québécois does. Divisive regional politics do not work in Canada as a whole.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Would calling many of them slobs be going too far if I were to take back the cow comment?
> 
> Either way their supporters definitely have a higher portion of people who barely have the motivation to keep themselves together.


Holy cow. Prejudice much?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Vandave said:


> If I was PM I would make regular exercise for my MPs mandatory.
> 
> Post exercise massages would be optional.


OK, this one was funny.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Midnight here is 7:30PM in BC. Polls don't close here until 8PM. When do they close there???


Ok then my math was off... my bad.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> If you examine the results of the last election in 2008, you will see that NDP support was spread out right across the country,* while Conservative support was concentrated in three Western provinces. Like it or not, the Cons are more of a regional party*, in line with their Alliance and Reform roots and it's a pretty tough image to shake. The NDP, rather surprisingly, is perceived as a more national party, especially considering their surge in popularity in Quebec. This is something Harper and most westerners fail to realize: *you cannot win a majority government in Canada without Quebec.* They account for about a quarter of the total population of Canada, with the Western provinces representing maybe a third. The rest is Ontario and the maritimes, with a handful of seats in the Northern territories. The Cons with Harper-Reform baggage has about as much of a shot at a majority government as the Bloc Québécois does. Divisive regional politics do not work in Canada as a whole.


This is simply not true the CPC won a significant number of seats in Ontario and the rest of Canada with the exclusion of NFLD where they were shut out. The fact is you can't get 143 seats without having support throughout the country. Your premise and your analysis is false.

Your Reform reference is out dated as at current count the number of Reform expats counts for about 10% of the CPC Caucus... do your home work first at least before making this kind of fallacious or at least misinformed post fjnmusic.

You can win a majority in Canada without Quebec.... Chretien did it twice. You can't win a majority in Canada without a majority in Ontario. Your post is just wrong on so many levels.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> This is simply not true the CPC won a significant number of seats in Ontario and the rest of Canada with the exclusion of NFLD where they were shut out. The fact is you can't get 143 seats without having support throughout the country. Your premise and your analysis is false.
> 
> Your post is just wrong on so many levels.


+1

Glad you pointed it out because I was sure thinking it as I read that post. Totally out to lunch.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

SINC said:


> +1
> 
> Glad you pointed it out because I was sure thinking it as I read that post. Totally out to lunch.


Always have to get a little jab in at the end there huh?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> This is simply not true the CPC won a significant number of seats in Ontario and the rest of Canada with the exclusion of NFLD where they were shut out. The fact is you can't get 143 seats without having support throughout the country. Your premise and your analysis is false.
> 
> Your Reform reference is out dated as at current count the number of Reform expats counts for about 10% of the CPC Caucus... do your home work first at least before making this kind of fallacious or at least misinformed post fjnmusic.
> 
> You can win a majority in Canada without Quebec.... Chretien did it twice. You can't win a majority in Canada without a majority in Ontario. Your post is just wrong on so many levels.


Sorry, Screature, perhaps it is you who needs to do your homework. Take a look at the map. You can also examine the results of every single riding in Canada if you are so inclined. Of course Ontario is essential as well, and together Ontario and Quebec represent more than 50% of the total population of Canada. My comment is tied to exactly what I see in the big picture on the map of Canada showing which party won in every region of Canada. That's a lot of orange spread around the country, mon ami, especially in Ontario.

Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> That's a lot of orange spread around the country, mon ami, especially in Ontario.


There sure is, and note that most of that orange is in largely unpopulated regions of the country.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well given the recent polling only asks people, not tracts of unpopulated land, the fact that the numbers sit at 31 to 36%, should give anyone pause when trying to say that.

The only way Harper will do it, is if the vote split is strong enough to land him more seats. If that were to happen, the cons should enjoy their 4 years, because I can guarantee it'll only be 4 years judging by how Harper and co acted with a minority. 4 years in a majority, one can only just imagine, the complete contempt for Canada they will show.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

SINC said:


> There sure is, and note that most of that orange is in largely unpopulated regions of the country.


Will be interesting to see if they lose any of those seats over the Layton coerced gun registry vote. Especially in the Nickel Belt and Thunder Bay regions.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Ok then my math was off... my bad.


No problem, mon ami. I am getting PMs from folks across the various time zones wanting to now the NL results, and if we are going to be the start of a blue and/or an orange surge. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

groovetube said:


> well given the recent polling only asks people, not tracts of unpopulated land, the fact that the numbers sit at 31 to 36%, should give anyone pause when trying to say that.
> 
> The only way Harper will do it, is if the vote split is strong enough to land him more seats. If that were to happen, the cons should enjoy their 4 years, because I can guarantee it'll only be 4 years judging by how Harper and co acted with a minority. 4 years in a majority, one can only just imagine, the complete contempt for Canada they will show.


Perhaps it would've been wiser for the Liberals and NDP to form a coalition party after all, since together they would easily have a majority. Harper shouldn't be able to object, since it was a coalition of the Conservatives and the Alliance that helped him become prime minister in the first place. See, coalitions can be fun as long as they work to your advantage!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Sorry, Screature, perhaps it is you who needs to do your homework. Take a look at the map. You can also examine the results of every single riding in Canada if you are so inclined. Of course Ontario is essential as well, and together Ontario and Quebec represent more than 50% of the total population of Canada. My comment is tied to exactly what I see in the big picture on the map of Canada showing which party won in every region of Canada. That's a lot of orange spread around the country, mon ami, especially in Ontario.
> 
> Canada Votes 2011 - CBC News


My statements are all correct. The CPC is not a regional party, you have to win Ontario if you hope to win a majority, Chretien did it twice without Quebec, Quebec is not necessary to win a majority, and the the ex-reformers only make up 10% of the CPC Caucus. I was correct in everything I said and you were correct in nothing. It is a simple fact.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> My statements are all correct. The CPC is not a regional party, you have to win Ontario if you hope to win a majority, Chretien did it twice without Quebec, Quebec is not necessary to win a majority, and the the ex-reformers only make up 10% of the CPC Caucus. I was correct in everything I said and you were correct in nothing. It is a simple fact.


Hearts and minds, Screature, you need to win hearts and minds. You speak like a true Conservative and I am not surprised. You say CPC, I say Cons, which is certainly more respectable than the acronym that once adorned the Conservative Reform Alliance Party. You seem quite oblivious to remembering the "West Wants In" roots of the party and Harper in particular, pretending that this is still the more centrist PC party of old. But no mind; you are correct about everything and I am correct about nothing, apparently.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

It all comes down to the vote splitting. We know that more Canadians want someone other than Harper, but the nature of FPTP will skew that desire. How the numbers turn out is what remains to be seen.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Given the CPC's lost support is largely base in the west/prairies, I have to partially agree with fjn. They've been able to expand further nationally with the collapse of the liberal party, but as we can see at least in the popular choice, that is now being challenged by the ndp. If the CPC were truly, a real national party as they have tried to make themselves, there would be absolutely no doubt they are getting a majority.

Just look where the lion share of their numbers are.

I don't need to declare I am right you are wrong end of story I'm the king of the castle. This is just my opinion based on what I see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jawknee said:


> Always have to get a little jab in at the end there huh?


No, just agreeing that the opinion was questionable, unlike yours which was just as you described it. A little jab. tptptptp


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> No, just agreeing that the opinion was questionable, unlike yours which was just as you described it. A little jab. tptptptp


Let's not start comparing the size of our jabs, gentlemen. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Would a pirate say he liked the cut of your jab?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Enough *Jib*ber jabber


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

SINC said:


> No, just agreeing that the opinion was questionable, unlike yours which was just as you described it. A little jab. tptptptp


Actually telling someone they're out to lunch is a jab and it makes you seem like a d**k, which I assume you would rather not be seen as.


Edit: also the mayor may want to close this thread as well.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jawknee said:


> Actually telling someone they're out to lunch is a jab and it makes you seem like a d**k, which I assume you would rather not be seen as.
> 
> 
> Edit: also the mayor may want to close this thread as well.


Ah yes, an intelligent response. Good job, well done.


----------

