# New Conservative attack ads on Ignatieff



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Just saw the new Conservative attack ad... during a YTV program I was watching with my 13 and 10 year old. Ironic ad was being targeted to them considering the maturity level of the boobs who made this ad. 

Its a funny ad to me, as its a pure sign of desperation from the Conservatives as they know their days are numbered. They had the slightest chance for a majority government with Dion running against them and they blew it. 

Against Ignatieff, they know they have no chance and are fighting just to stay in power and the only way they will do that, is with no message except (old) style American politics attack ads. 

Unfortunately for them, don't think it will work this time and these attack ads will be as much as a PR coup for them as the Tamil Tigers taking over the Gardinder Expressway. 

I could see the writing on the wall when Obama was coming into power, and I see that same writing now for Ignatieff who will be our next Prime Minister. 

Let the Conservative foaming at the mouth begin in 3, 2, 1......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Perhaps you could explain your theory a little more clearly. What did you see on YTV?


----------



## lewdvig (Nov 20, 2003)

It had boobs? I like those.

+1 conservative vote


----------



## lewdvig (Nov 20, 2003)

I've been a card carrying Lib since 1990. 

Ignatief is a dork. He should not be a PM until he stops mentally masturbating to his own self image. He loves himself. LOVES himself.

Even Obama has a bit of self loathing in him. He is almost human. At a minimum you can believe at some point in the past he was human.

I see minority govs until electoral reform.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Ignatieff's best trait as far as Conservative fortunes go, is he will not shut up about wanting to raise taxes.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

secret background briefing


----------



## lewdvig (Nov 20, 2003)

Why the secrecy? What's the point? Are people in Ottawa really so dumb as to think there is actually a difference between the two parties?

Bad vs Bad with orange and green clowns for entertainment.

Can we get the Bloc out West?

And in a sea of faceless gutless journos, revealing the source of this non news might actually build a career. The controversy would be bigger than this story. LOL


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Ignatieff who will be our next Prime Minister.


Maybe, maybe not - I wouldn't be popping any champagne corks just yet.

Attack ads may be distasteful, but they usually work.


lewdvig said:


> I see minority govs until electoral reform.


Agreed. The swing seats will determine if it is a Conservative or Liberal minority, too early to say which way it will go, but it's a safe bet we'll have nothing but minorities for the foreseeable future.


----------



## lewdvig (Nov 20, 2003)

PenguinBoy said:


> Maybe, maybe not - I wouldn't be popping any champagne corks just yet.
> 
> Attack ads may be distasteful, but they usually work.
> .


Particularly when there are no policies, vision or issues to vote on.

Here, I'll give them two. Gratis.

Harper - ditch the GST

Ig - Keep it, but universal child care.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Ok, this site is brilliant.

Ignatieff.me


----------



## lewdvig (Nov 20, 2003)

It is perfect.

See the world of the future, TODAY!

A Wold where Ig gives Harper another minority gov't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Caught some of those "attack" ads. I have to say I think they're pretty effective. Much more savvy than the ads Ignatieff ran against Harper.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Caught some of those "attack" ads. I have to say I think they're pretty effective. Much more savvy than the ads Ignatieff ran against Harper.


Especially since they are not really attacks at all. They aren't even partisan opinion, just a list of black and white facts and quotes. If Ignatieff's supporters think that they are demeaning, what they are really saying is they are embarrassed of Ignatieff and wish people would not point out that their emperor has no clothes.

He's mentioned that he wants to raise taxes plenty of times. He's mentioned his disdain for Canada plenty of times. These are valid things to point out to Canadians, especially when Ignatieff is threatening to trigger an election if he doesn't get his way on EI reform.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How very Karl Rovian.... -



> *Negative ads coarsen debate*
> 
> May 15, 2009 04:30 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I found
these grit girl videos to be more effective than Ignatieff.me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> How very Karl Rovian.... -


MacDoc: You forgot to credit the source of the material you used. Perhaps it would be easier if you changed your signature to read "Above opinion courtesy _Toronto Star_."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is the part that had me rolling:



> To be sure, the Liberals have also used attack ads in the past to portray Harper as a dangerous man. But Harper is now a known quantity to Canadians and harder to caricature.
> 
> On the other hand, Ignatieff is still largely unknown to Canadian voters. That gives the Conservatives an opportunity to "frame" him in the public mind as unfit to lead the country.


It's not unfair to run the attack ads, since the_ Star_ approves of the LIberal attack ads on Harper. It's unfair to do so because Harper is now much more difficult to caricature than Ignatieff!!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't think these attack ads will be as effective as the conservative keeners think (hope) they will be. The thing is, this is all the conservative have in their arsenal it seems. 

So, what happens if this doesn't work as expected?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Caught some of those "attack" ads. I have to say I think they're pretty effective. Much more savvy than the ads Ignatieff ran against Harper.


Well that's a BIG surprise...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I laughed at the Dion attack ads run by the Conservatives in the last election, but they were not really professionally produced. I can't imagine these not working.


----------



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

No negative ads by the Conservatives here in NL ................... of course, no Conservative MPs either here in NL.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The attack ad is entirely cool - we need more of them. Who cares about the"issues" anyways - we all know that politicians, once they "get in", make a bee line for the trough and barrel, and end up breaking all of their so called promises in a New York second. I am all for campaigns that dredge up the real dirt, since after the Election, once the dirt becomes scandal, it takes up a lot of resources and time.

Perhaps my only complaint is that we are no where near an actual campaign - but maybe this ad revenue is the Conservative's way of providing bail out money. Their ad is almost as cool as TMZ...


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

If only the conservatives would use that kind of professionalism and expedite all that stimulus cash that they promised in the budget several months ago.

Laterz


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

What's left to stimulate? Everything is packed up and gone - though I must say, the air hasn't been cleaner in Hamilton in my lifetime. No job, but at least the air is cleaner.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

K_OS said:


> If only the conservatives would use that kind of professionalism and expedite all that stimulus cash that they promised in the budget several months ago.


I'm entirely happy they aren't spending it because the economy is already set for a rebound without it. I don't know if we can escape fallout from the nightmare that Obama is creating south of the border, with printing presses spewing out cash like confetti, but Canada itself is doing quite well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm entirely happy they aren't spending it because the economy is already set for a rebound without it. I don't know if we can escape fallout from the nightmare that Obama is creating south of the border, with printing presses spewing out cash like confetti, but Canada itself is doing quite well.


Now I might be stating the obvious to others, but it seems the 'nightmare' had already been created by the nincompoop republicans before Obama ever got there.

You seem to be using that same logic where people believe the balanced books, and a better banking system was Harper's doing...

The economy, isn't 'rebounding' anytime soon.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Now I might be stating the obvious to others, but it seems the 'nightmare' had already been created by the nincompoop republicans before Obama ever got there.


No, you're confusing one nincompoop with the next.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No, you're confusing one nincompoop with the next.


that could very well be. However, if we're talking about things that have -happened-, versus things that we might surmise will happen, given Obama has been in office mere months, I think I'll go with the nincompoops who had 8 years.

The 'nightmare' you've referenced, has already been created, and will continue for some time with, or without Obama's help. If anyone thinks this is going to 'rebound' soon, you're an amoeba.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

^^^
Fastest debt creation in histoy--and it only took him mere months. He ought to get some sort of award for that.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I don't think these attack ads will be as effective as the conservative keeners think (hope) they will be. The thing is, this is all the conservative have in their arsenal it seems.
> 
> So, what happens if this doesn't work as expected?


When Dion was first appointed leader of the Liberals, the Conservatives were very quick to characterize him in the public eye. It was very very effective and Dion never recovered from it. I am glad that my contributions to the Party were well spent. :lmao:

I think Iggy is a pretty easy target as well, but I expect he will handle the attacks better than Dion was able. Well, how could one do any worse?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I laughed at the Dion attack ads run by the Conservatives in the last election, but they were not really professionally produced. I can't imagine these not working.


Who cares about "professional production"? People watched The Tom Green Show mostly because it was crass and lacked anything that could be considered slick. I think the rough look to the ads makes it stand out more, actually, since there are a million commericals on TV that are slick and over produced that I can't remember - but the ones that are unusual stick out in the mind.

The Conservatives are on the attack, and I hope they don't run out of cash because I want to see more "cool facts" about Ignatieff and Layton, and whoever else. I think mud slinging politics is politics in it's finest hour, it is what it is all about - sticking the opponent with some negative image, while making ones' self look slick. Of course, the Fiberals could have a heyday with King Harpo in his leather rodeo regalia - only to be countered by the "Liberal child care program" - we know what that's about now...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> When Dion was first appointed leader of the Liberals, the Conservatives were very quick to characterize him in the public eye. It was very very effective and Dion never recovered from it. I am glad that my contributions to the Party were well spent. :lmao:
> 
> I think Iggy is a pretty easy target as well, but I expect he will handle the attacks better than Dion was able. Well, how could one do any worse?


agreed that the ads certainly were very effective on Dion, though disappointed you'd spend your money on that. You and your money were easily parted? :clap:

We'll know soon enough if these ads are as effective, my guess is no, and I predict it may actually backfire, if even just a little bit. But that, is all the liberals need. A wee backfire. There is some anger growing towards Harper, and this time round, it's a little more. If the tories continue to be seen as wasting money on negative ads rather than dealing with the economy, it'll soon be only their most ardent supporters who think they're great.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> agreed that the ads certainly were very effective on Dion, though disappointed you'd spend your money on that. You and your money were easily parted? :clap:


Actually 3/4's of my contribution was 'your' money. You can thank me later.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Actually 3/4's of my contribution was 'your' money. You can thank me later.


in fact, the more money Harper spends on such useless petty nonsense, the more Canadians will remember this next election. 

Boast it louder. In fact all you conservatives should make that known far more. And I -will- thank you later.
:clap:


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Vandave said:


> I think Iggy is a pretty easy target as well, but I expect he will handle the attacks better than Dion was able. Well, how could one do any worse?


 I sincerely think he'll be easier to defeat than Dion was. 

The point of the 'define the leader' ad is sound. It worked so well last time that even the strongly Liberal media started to take it as a given that Dion was incompetent, to the point that even G&M and the Star started making excuses for him. They essentially went with the meme that while he _is_ inept, at least he's in it for the right reasons. Now Ignatieff is being defined as not even having that going for him. 

"Not a Leader" was decried as juvenile and ineffective when it was released, but it stuck. This will stick too.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> When Dion was first appointed leader of the Liberals, the Conservatives were very quick to characterize him in the public eye. It was very very effective and Dion never recovered from it. I am glad that my contributions to the Party were well spent. :lmao:
> 
> I think Iggy is a pretty easy target as well, but I expect he will handle the attacks better than Dion was able. Well, how could one do any worse?


However, Dion never did have the support of the Caucus (even though the Party selected him), while Ignatieff has the solid support of about a third of the Caucus, and another third through his allies. The Conservatives didn't stick the fork into Dion, those inside the Liberal Party did. The Green Shaft plan just was out of place, and looked too much like a punative tax to curry the support of the electors, so when his leadership was shaky, Dion attempted to bring about Economic Salvation with his alliance with Layton. As both plots failed, the faction that supported Ignatieff were quick with the daggers. As Ignatieff was never really on the record as being a true supported of the Green Shaft, Economic Salvation or the Putsch - he scored large. Simply getting rid of Dion lead to the Liberals grabbing a quick 8% on the popularity polls...

But the ads worked in that many Canadians just felt uncomfortable with Dion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> Who cares about "professional production"? People watched The Tom Green Show mostly because it was crass and lacked anything that could be considered slick. I think the rough look to the ads makes it stand out more, actually, since there are a million commericals on TV that are slick and over produced that I can't remember - but the ones that are unusual stick out in the mind...


I was thinking about the Dion web site, which had some technical problems. The TV ads were fine. I also agree that I want to see more attack ads like this and see all sides come out with guns blazing.

A call to genteel politics is usually the province of those out of power.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

bsenka said:


> "Not a Leader" was decried as juvenile and ineffective when it was released, but it stuck. This will stick too.


I bet you $100 it doesn't. :greedy:  

Seriously, I bet you $100 Ignatieff is our next prime minister.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> A call to genteel politics is usually the province of those out of power.


Or those with actually something to say.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"stick"????

yeah that's what the Cons are down to as far as contribution to Canada goes.....

sticky piles of horsepuckey.....they feel the urgent need to fling to cover up their own cess pool....

classic puerile grade 2 mindset seen so often in the lappy puppy pool here. They do indeed take their lead from chief pooched.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> "stick"????
> 
> yeah that's what the Cons are down to as far as contribution to Canada goes.....
> 
> ...


Settle down, settle down MaccyD. That word salad barely passes the requirements of a coherent paragraph.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> "stick"????
> 
> yeah that's what the Cons are down to as far as contribution to Canada goes.....
> 
> ...


And how would you characterize the attacks on Harper from the Liberals and NDP all those years under Chretien and Martin?

I should donate $50 to Conservative attack ads every time you use the term lap puppy. It only costs me $12.50. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I curious how one donates 50 dollars to a political party as many times as they wish, and receive a 75% rebate.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I curious how one donates 50 dollars to a political party as many times as they wish, and receive a 75% rebate.


You can donate as many times as you like and still get the 75% rebate as long as you keep it under $1100. That means MacDoc only has to say lap puppy 22 times for me to hit the max of $1100. My cost? $275. Your cost? $825. Enjoy your ads. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

more conservative math? How is it -I- personally pay $875?

If you send a few hundred dollars to a political party, it doesn't matter if macdoc says it, you are indeed, a lap puppy. It's all right, it need not be a negative thing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> more conservative math? How is it -I- personally pay $875?


Well maybe not you per se considering that NDP supporters are not typically tax payers.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> If you send a few hundred dollars to a political party, it doesn't matter if macdoc says it, you are indeed, a lap puppy. It's all right, it need not be a negative thing.


Because I would be sending more money than I currently do. More donations = more attack ads.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Vandave said:


> You can donate as many times as you like and still get the 75% rebate as long as you keep it under $1100. That means MacDoc only has to say lap puppy 22 times for me to hit the max of $1100. My cost? $275. Your cost? $825. Enjoy your ads. :lmao:


I'm in on that! I'll send my first $50 today to get the ball rolling.

Actually, that will probably be the first sign of the turning tide, even before the polls revert to normal; a surge in CPC donations. Many of the seemingly disaffected are simply waiting to see when the CPC was going to start hitting back.





ehMax said:


> I bet you $100 it doesn't. :greedy:
> 
> Seriously, I bet you $100 Ignatieff is our next prime minister.


 "Next" could be a very long time. There are theoretical possibilities that could make him the next PM. He might cross the floor to the Conservatives after Harper retires.


*Q: Why is Michael Ignatieff still in Canada?

A: Because Ruby Dhalla’s holding his passport.*


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Well maybe not you per se considering that NDP supporters are not typically tax payers.


Well I don't know about NDP supporters, though I'll guess you are likely wrong. Interesting question though as to who I really support, I just hired a web developer and a graphic designer this year, so plenty of dough going to Ottawa this year I suspect, particularly if I need 2 more.

So yea keep sending 50 bucks to pay for attack ads. That's quite a contribution I suppose!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VanDave: Did you ask groovetube who he really supports?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> VanDave: Did you ask groovetube who he really supports?


I don't think he asked.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

ehMax said:


> Just saw the new Conservative attack ad...


Getting back to y'know...the topic of the thread ...I had a similar reaction, Mr. Mayor. For months...._months_....the negative ads that the Cons were hatching were supposedly the talk of the town here. If _this_ is their best shot, if _this_ is really their much-promised bare-knuckle hit on Ignatieff, then these blue-tie wearing frat boys are in big, big trouble. Well we all are, really, as long as these guys are at the helm of HMCS Canada. 

We've got an economy to repair, a tough war on our hands, and a country that's desperately seeking some kind of leadership 'fer crying out loud. Meanwhile the blue sweater gang wants to play games. 

I am fed up with this nonsense.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

(( p g )) said:


> Getting back to y'know...the topic of the thread ...I had a similar reaction, Mr. Mayor. For months...._months_....the negative ads that the Cons were hatching were supposedly the talk of the town here. If _this_ is their best shot, if _this_ is really their much-promised bare-knuckle hit on Ignatieff, then these blue-tie wearing frat boys are in big, big trouble. Well we all are, really, as long as these guys are at the helm of HMCS Canada.
> 
> We've got an economy to repair, a tough war on our hands, and a country that's desperately seeking some kind of leadership 'fer crying out loud. Meanwhile the blue sweater gang wants to play games.
> 
> I am fed up with this nonsense.


I think you just articulated what I have read, and heard, just about everywhere. The last time perhaps some leeway was afforded, Dion was an easy target, and it was a time where we weren't focused on a disintegrating economy. However this time round, I think it's a bit of a more costly gamble for Harper. If it backfires even just a little, Iggy has a wind in his sails, and that's all Iggy really needs right now. I'm not really a fan of Iggy by any means, but I have to admit I would enjoy seeing the seething rage on Harper's face if he got knocked off his perch in the sandbox.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, VanDave, I see that the ads have brought about the winds of change, a sense of righteous anger and a demand for new blood on Parliament Hill--at least among people who had no intention of voting Conservative.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> I think you just articulated what I have read, and heard, just about everywhere. The last time perhaps some leeway was afforded, Dion was an easy target, and it was a time where we weren't focused on a disintegrating economy. However this time round, I think it's a bit of a more costly gamble for Harper. If it backfires even just a little, Iggy has a wind in his sails, and that's all Iggy really needs right now. I'm not really a fan of Iggy by any means, but I have to admit I would enjoy seeing the seething rage on Harper's face if he got knocked off his perch in the sandbox.


The problems with that logic are:

1) The worst is over, the economy is already improving. 

2) Even at it's worst, we had the best economy in the world.

3) Yes Dion was an easy target. Harper beat him easily, but Ignatieff could not.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Well, VanDave, I see that the ads have brought about the winds of change, a sense of righteous anger and a demand for new blood on Parliament Hill--at least among people who had no intention of voting Conservative.


Most ads find a soft landing with the loyal demographic and reinforce what they all ready believe. The true measure of their effectiveness is do they persuade the fence sitters or swing votes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> The problems with that logic are:
> 
> 1) The worst is over, the economy is already improving.
> 
> ...


Really. The worst is over you say? Why, because you saw a headline? Something about the stock market?

If you think the economy is now going to suddenly get better, you're very, very naive. It's going to get worse, before it gets better. The job losses are still mounting, and we have yet to experience the real down of having so many people, out of work, not finding jobs, and running out of savings or benefits. Wait til we enjoy having interest rates skyrocketing...

As for your 3rd point, that's just idiotic.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> VanDave: Did you ask groovetube who he really supports?


No, I figured Layton. Groove, who do you really support?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Wait til we enjoy having interest rates skyrocketing...


Obama.



Ottawaman said:


> Most ads find a soft landing with the loyal demographic and reinforce what they all ready believe. The true measure of their effectiveness is do they persuade the fence sitters or swing votes.


I think some people worry too much about swing votes. If all the ads do is reinforce the loyal demographic they have succeeded. A few swing votes would be icing on the cake. Regardless, the only time to run these ads is now, before people form a clear opinion of Ignatieff. Too late to do so if they wait until an election is called.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> No, I figured Layton. Groove, who do you really support?


well I now live in another riding in downtown, so I'll need to get to know who the member is here, and/or the ones who will run in an upcoming election whenever that is. So I'm not quite sure yet. But I'm doing my best to contribute rather than just spout negativity. Perhaps that's something better to support rather than the bozo freak show we have in Ottawa currently.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> well I now live in another riding in downtown, so I'll need to get to know who the member is here, and/or the ones who will run in an upcoming election whenever that is. So I'm not quite sure yet. But I'm doing my best to contribute rather than just spout negativity. Perhaps that's something better to support rather than the bozo freak show we have in Ottawa currently.


So essentially you're picking between non-Conservatives.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> I think some people worry too much about swing votes. If all the ads do is reinforce the loyal demographic they have succeeded. A few swing votes would be icing on the cake. Regardless, the only time to run these ads is now, before people form a clear opinion of Ignatieff. Too late to do so if they wait until an election is called.


Obama? What are you, 8? Did Obama cause the interest rates in the last 2 recessions in the early 80s and the 90s to hit 20% too?

The 'loyal demographic' will always vote conservative. Attack ads or no. Otherwise, they wouldn't be loyal then would they?
:lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So essentially you're picking between non-Conservatives.


the force, is strong with this one.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> It's going to get worse, before it gets better. The job losses are still mounting, and we have yet to experience the real down of having so many people, out of work, not finding jobs, and running out of savings or benefits. Wait til we enjoy having interest rates skyrocketing...


The markets have been going back up. Jobs have increased. Housing starts are increasing, Oil prices are going back up. The recovery is obviously not going to be a meteoric bounce right back up. It's gradual, but the direction is UP. If you're worried about future interest rates, lock in now, the rates are the lowest in history.

If you can't find a job in Toronto, come to the prairies, our biggest trouble right now is finding enough people to fill the jobs that are open. There's lots of work.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Did Obama cause the interest rates in the last 2 recessions in the early 80s and the 90s to hit 20% too?


Bingo! It was caused by a massive increase in money supply chasing too few goods. Only Obama is making Carter look like a piker.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I think some people worry too much about swing votes. If all the ads do is reinforce the loyal demographic they have succeeded. A few swing votes would be icing on the cake. Regardless, the only time to run these ads is now, before people form a clear opinion of Ignatieff. Too late to do so if they wait until an election is called.


I wonder how much "bang for your buck' you get spending money on voters who have always voted for 1 party and always will? 
The soft vote seems to put things in play.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Bingo! It was caused by a massive increase in money supply chasing too few goods. Only Obama is making Carter look like a piker.


conveniently left Reagan and Bush out didn't ya.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the ads will have a chance to form opinions among soft voters. However in a country where half of the voters don't vote, rousing the troops can be a very good thing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> conveniently left Reagan and Bush out didn't ya.


Sure, because the interest rates were declining during that period.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> The markets have been going back up. Jobs have increased. Housing starts are increasing, Oil prices are going back up. The recovery is obviously not going to be a meteoric bounce right back up. It's gradual, but the direction is UP. If you're worried about future interest rates, lock in now, the rates are the lowest in history.
> 
> If you can't find a job in Toronto, come to the prairies, our biggest trouble right now is finding enough people to fill the jobs that are open. There's lots of work.


Jobs have increased??? Unemployment is going back down?

Hell I need me some new news sources. 

Anyway, I've had enough of this song and dance for the night.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I think the ads will have a chance to form opinions among soft voters. However in a country where half of the voters don't vote, rousing the troops can be a very good thing.


Yes from a civics point of view. From a political point of view it depends on which way they go.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman: I look at the U.S. election and note that there wasn't a huge difference in the popular vote between Obama and McCain. However, McCain never gave Republicans a great reason to go out and support him. He couldn't point to any major differences between himself and Obama. If anyone attacked Obama, he would defend him. I think this is what caused a splinter of Republican voters to lose interest in going to the polls, enough o lose the election.

McCain played hard to the "swing voters" and so-called moderates but he lost his own base in doing it.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

In a FPTP system winning a riding by a couple of hundred votes is the same as winning with 99% of the votes since we don't have any sort of proportional representation.

As we all know, there are ridings in Canada that would vote for a blue painted scarecrow or a red painted one. 
But in ridings that are are up for grabs the media campaigns can play a big role.
Unfortunately for all of us, the campaigns are racing to mimic the American model. Attack campaigns that don't dwell on policy, but instead smear the opponent.
I get enough of that stupidity watching Question Period.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm just pointing out that there is value in energizing the base--but I agree that the two party sytem of the U.S. doesn't make for a perfect comparison either. No mater what our opinions on the attack ads, it won't take more than day or two for some pollster to find out whether or not they are working as planned.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> Hell I need me some new news sources.


Apparently.

The Recession Is Over - Forbes.com

Is the Recession Over? - The New York Times

Latest release from the Labour Force Survey. Friday, May 8, 2009

17,000 new jobs in culture and recreation, 15,000 new jobs in building service, 14,000 new ag jobs, 37,000 new self employed jobs, 4.6% unemployment in Manitoba, 5% unemployment in Saskatchewan, retail sales, industrial production and housing starts all increasing. Inflation, interest rates, and personal debt all dropping. GDP is increasing, wages are increasing. TSX, DOW and Nasdaq have been gradually climbing since mid february, Most of the major tech stocks are up substantially since since january. 

All modest gains, sure, and there are still ups and downs, but the overall direction is clearly up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bsenka: He really did need new news sources.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Just saw the new Conservative attack ad... during a YTV program I was watching with my 13 and 10 year old. Ironic ad was being targeted to them considering the maturity level of the boobs who made this ad.
> 
> Its a funny ad to me, as its a pure sign of desperation from the Conservatives as they know their days are numbered. They had the slightest chance for a majority government with Dion running against them and they blew it.
> 
> ...


Conservatives = one trick pony

At least they can admit that they are no longer "progressive" by having that part of their name removed.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> In a FPTP system winning a riding by a couple of hundred votes is the same as winning with 99% of the votes since we don't have any sort of proportional representation.
> 
> As we all know, there are ridings in Canada that would vote for a blue painted scarecrow or a red painted one.
> But in ridings that are are up for grabs the media campaigns can play a big role.
> ...


It's interesting how we interpret the colors. In the U,S and A, red is Republican and bue is democrat, whereas in Canada, red is Liberal and blue is Conservative. Same colors; opposite meanings.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Apparently.
> 
> The Recession Is Over - Forbes.com
> 
> ...


I've been through at least big 2 recessions so I'm not stupid enough to buy that, but, be my guest. I recognize they are trying to be positive and boost consumer confidence, but it is far... from over my friend.

I recall having an argument with another conservative who maintained the US was not going into recession, I think it was early in 08. He posted all kinds of links to economists and news links, how the US wasn't in recession and wasn't going to be in one. The US was already in a recession at the time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I've been through the last two as well and frankly this one is very weird.

I tend to concur it's far from over.....UK and US in particular but I can't read what is going on in Canada.
Maybe there is so much stored wealth with an aging population plus the Canadian Banks are not being stupid about making things worse.....

It does not feel like a recession for the GTA.  The demographics are very different than in 1982 as are interest rates.

As far as "up".......I would suggest that a a smaller economy will be the outcome and that is overdue.
The metrics of evaluating an economy have been ridiculous and non indicative for years - those are stale tea leaves you are using if you think it's over.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

remember conservative supporters were trumpeting that if we were going to have a recession we would have had one by now. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> At least they can admit that they are no longer "progressive" by having that part of their name removed.


I've always laughed at the term "progressive" because, by and large, those countries who claim to be the most "progressive" have economies that are in the dumper. Such a positive spin on something so damaging.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The metrics of evaluating an economy have been ridiculous and non indicative for years ...


I'll bite. What do you think should replace GDP and GNP as economic indicators?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MacDoc said:


>


An interesting image, when you consider the lineage. Fascinating, even.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> An interesting image, when you consider the lineage. Fascinating, even.


I've always thought that Iggy looked like Mark Lenard. Who, politically, do you suppose Mr. Spock is supposed to actually represent in the cartoon? Or is it just supposed to be Mr. Spock?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I've always thought that Iggy looked like Mark Lenard. Who, politically, do you suppose Mr. Spock is supposed to actually represent in the cartoon? Or is it just supposed to be Mr. Spock?


Jeremy Quinto.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I suppose we can all agree that positive as opposed to negative advertisements and political messages are preferable. It bothers me that the Conservatives, and the Liberals as well, simply attack ad hominem instead of comparing their policies and commitments with the others in a genuine way. 

We have A, they have B, this is why A is better.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No matter the party, no matter the content, political advertising is the biggest waste of party funds one can imagine. If there is no election in progress, why bother?

Negative advertising usually nets negative responses or garners support from negative people. It's much cheaper to let leaders hang themselves with guffaws and policy stupidity than to bother spending resources on such nonsense.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> I suppose we can all agree that positive as opposed to negative advertisements and political messages are preferable. .


I don't think positive messages are always preferable. If a party believes that a certain policy or choice of PM will be damaging, then they need to say it.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

*Not so sure about that!*

Hi:

I've worked political campaigns for a number of years [ 30 to be exact ] and I'm not so sure your thoughts on the Conservatives are accurate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Harper fan, but my gut reaction is that "we the people", to steal a phrase, are fed up with having to go to elections every 16 months.

My sense is that the party who forces the next election will be punished...not sure who it will be, but who ever does will fell the wrath.

I think Harper's only error is the back door on the "rule the term" promise...he did pay for that and that may hurt his chances in the next election, especially if he calls it.

These are extraordinary times, and not all of our problems have been caused by us, mostly U.S......It should be fun to watch ....if the Libs call it, and the NDP start holding hands, look out, we could have the largest Conservative win in years....only hopefully Harper doesn't turn into a Mullooney!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> No matter the party, no matter the content, political advertising is the biggest waste of party funds one can imagine. If there is no election in progress, why bother?


I'm guessing that this is a pre-emptive strike designed to help prevent an imminent election.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Tories attack: bad manners, bad politics

Get 'em Rex.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

*Again, not so sure.*

Hello MacFury:

Again, I'm not so sure about policital ads being a waste. One of the problems in running a campaign is the establishment of the "brand". Most parties only work their brand around election time.

I've always felt this was wrong, since most Canadians have a very short electorial memory and, due to our election vote base, it is easy to confuse or, in a party sense, not distinguish themselves as different in actual practice, compared to preceived dogma.

I think parties would be wise to market their brand on a continuous basis, advertising does this well if targeted correctly. Many a campaign has been won on a catch phrase during an election media campaign....since we have 10 second sound bites, this is what we, the voters, retain.

Where parties fall off the rails is their misunderstanding of an issue...take John Tory in Ontario and his religious school funding. It wasn't an issue until he created it.....the results speak for themselves.

Rp


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

some brand


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Get 'em Rex.


Rex preaches only to the choir.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

*MacDoc, where did you get my picture?*

I agree with the picture.....I guess your view of politics is a matter of breeding.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps: MacDoc's view of politics appears to be that he is tolerant of all political persuasions--particularly the Conservatives when they're out of power. If you dare utter any suggestion that the Conservatives might have done something worthwhile you are automatically branded a "lappy puppy," which is some sort of personal euphemism for an acolyte.

If the attack ads were coming from the Libs, the posts would likely read:



> 'bout right


Just helping you to get a feel for the territory.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Rex preaches only to the choir.


Is it preaching to the choir... or, "energizing the base".

Hard to keep track.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Is it preaching to the choir... or, "energizing the base".
> 
> Hard to keep track.


Why would you try to create an artificial distinction between the two?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why would you try to create an artificial distinction between the two?


Oh now you're backtracking.

That's ok too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Oh now you're backtracking.


?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper running scared indeed....



> *Will Tory attack ads sting Harper?*
> 
> It is unprecedented for a sitting Canadian prime minister to approve – as Stephen Harper did this week – French-language attack ads that depict a fellow federalist leader as hostile to Quebec.
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | Will Tory attack ads sting Harper?

Time for an election to get rid of this loose cannon.....Harpertime is over.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Harper running scared indeed....


I sure think it's got you scared...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I don't think positive messages are always preferable. If a party believes that a certain policy or choice of PM will be damaging, then they need to say it.


Certainly, but doing so can be done within the context of a positive advertisement. 

For example,

Policy A from Party A is bad, so we propose Policy B from our Party. 

These conservative ads, and I'm not pointing out the conservatives because all parties are guilty of it, simply attack the leader but not even on any grounds that would reasonably effect his leadership. This is arguable of course, but I think we can come to consensus that the advertisements would be more preferable if they attacked policies WITH comparison to their own policies showing the benefits.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian.: I see your point, I would probably find that style of "attack" more useful.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I sure think it's got you scared...


I think it's cool. We need such attacks to remind people, all people, about the segregationalists of Quebec, of the atmosphere of hatred and discrimination, and to call out all of the politicians that cater to such shenanigans.

If this is "unprecidented", it's only because our former leaders were entirely weak, and all too willing to just bend over for filth like Parizeau and Marois, just to buy some cheap votes. It goes beyond saying that we, as a nation, can condemn such attrocious behaviours in other countries - but we don't have the guts to stand up for our own people here, or at least the handful of freedom loving people who are left in Quebec, who only wish an end to the harassment and Jim Crow discrimination that goes on.

Any person that stands up to the lecturn to say they want to lead this nation had better expunge any thought of continuing in the ways of class and race warfare, and fight for what is fair and right, rather than just to pander for some pocket votes and perpetuate the very system that goes against our own Constitution.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Certainly, but doing so can be done within the context of a positive advertisement.
> For example,
> Policy A from Party A is bad, so we propose Policy B from our Party.


For all that such ads sound like a good thing, there are a few problems.

First, no one trusts any political party, and more often than not, a party that gets voted in breaks all of those policies. For example, look at McGuilty, who broke over 250 promises that he had officially made in his Little Red Book. Sometimes things just can't be done, sometimes it ends up that a policy is actually illegal or against the Constitution, while most of the time, the promises are just some tawdry throwaways to grab fast votes. Derived from that is the fact that no one trusts a "positive" ad from a political party, because it is generally a lie.

Second, no one remembers a positive ad. It's fluff, like a tampon commercial. What people remember is drama, and nothing is more dramatic that showing pictures of someone failing. So whether it is Ignatieff stuttering, or Dion stuttering, or Chretien punching out a pensioner, or Turner melting down in a debate - it's all about something dramatic, that people will remember. As Chuck Schumer demonstrated, the more mud you throw, the better your chances are.

Third, one doesn't want too much exposure, because it just looks too slimy. No one wants a 30 second ad looking at Stephen Harper. It is more effective to have 25 seconds of Ignatieff looking bad, followed by a glossy 5 seconds of Harper not looking slimy. The more they had John Tory on the TV blathering on about his policies of religious discrimination - the more I'd basically vote for any other party. It would have been better for Tory if he had concentrated on the 250 broken promises and the selling out of Ontario that was accomlished by McGuilty and his thieves and scum.



> This is arguable of course, but I think we can come to consensus that the advertisements would be more preferable if they attacked policies WITH comparison to their own policies showing the benefits.


That would be the most boring and pointless kind of ad possible. No one cares about "issues". If we cared about issues, we'd put together a bunch of scientists and thinkers and come up with something top drawer in all respects. There is not party that doesn't just do what every party does once in power - and that is to sidle as many party goons up to the trough for a hearty feast. Look at someone like Bob Rae, who despite his "promises" of progressive minded legislation - brought out the Social Contract instead, a policy that was largely borrowed from petty third world dictatorships and the Enabling Laws.

I think if they are going to put ads out - they had better be good, because I have a remote control for the TV and can flip to something exciting. Nothing would be worse than to have the finale of 24 interrupted by Jack Layton looking greasy and talking about how many people he's going to stuff onto the dole. What I want to see is the filth and mud, because filth and mud is all about what politics actually is in the post-modern world.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I sure think it's got you scared...


The fear of social justice...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Must be bad when lap puppy in hiding Rex decries .....



> *Tories attack: bad manners, bad politics*
> 
> REX MURPHY
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

I have to laugh at the "these will backfire" cries from the left. 

We heard the same thing from all the same people last time:

Dion Attack Ad Hurts Harper More in Canada: Angus Reid Global Monitor

Anyone remember how that turned out?

Besides, the right put up with vicious patently false attacks from the Liberals for decades. When they get a taste of their own medicine they cry foul? Right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Must be bad when lap puppy in hiding Rex decries .....


I think this is proof that MacDoc reads only his own posts. That was covered and linked a page ago, sir.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> I have to laugh at the "these will backfire" cries from the left.
> 
> We heard the same thing from all the same people last time:
> 
> ...


I despise any of the attack ads, regardless of which side it comes from.

Unfortunately for your tory fantasies, I don't think these one trick ponies are gonna work the way they did on Dion. But I really think the tories should really do a much bigger attack ad campaign. As more and more people lose their jobs, and when they strat running out of benefits and savings, people will trully enjoy them even more so!

Oh right I forgot the economy is much better now.
:baby:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ooops 



> *Calling all 'decent Canadians'
> The Liberals drop their gloves and press the faithful into service, *
> 
> JANE TABER
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*From zero...to hero!*



MacDoc said:


> ooops


There we have it folks, the smoking gun. The proof we've all been looking for. The Liberals are now rolling in the green stuff only days after those attack ads were run.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

smoking gun? Hell I think it's almost funny.

If this is true, then Vandave sending 50 bucks to the tories for attack ads, is also putting money in the liberal pockets.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Do you believe it?



groovetube said:


> If this is true...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Do you believe it?


believe what


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> believe what


The claim by the unidentified "senior Liberal" that "the ads are driving money to his party's coffers."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The claim by the unidentified "senior Liberal" that "the ads are driving money to his party's coffers."


I donno, do you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I donno..


Thanks for the answer.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Do you believe it?


Not a chance. There's several problems with the story:

1) Notice the story makes a distinction between what Alf Apps wrote in his letter, and what a "senior official" told Jane Taber. "A senior official" is Globe and Mail speak for "I'm making this up".

2) Jane Taber is openly admitting what we all already knew: that she's shilling for the Liberals as opposed to reporting news. The bulk of the story is just a regurgitation of a Liberal member fundraising letter.

3) Liberals don't vote with their wallets. Wanting something for nothing is what makes them Liberals in the first place.

4) The LPC distributed the same letters before the last election, making the same claims, and when the financials were released, it turned out their donations had actually dropped.

I guarantee you one thing though, that there HAS been a surge in donations to the Conservatives. And Liberals publicly claiming to be on track with their fundraising will only serve to increase that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Thanks for the answer.


I guess "*IF THIS IS TRUE...*" wasn't clear enough for you so you needed to spend near a page to figure it out.

Merry go round macfury...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bsenka: I agree. The bait-and-switch between Apps and the "senior official" is classic non-reporting.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Conservatives against Dion who couldn't articulate, and everything was going for them in their favour, and still only getting minority = fail. 

Conservatives against Ignatieff who is intelligent, can articulate well in a climate where Conservatives 'saw no reason to worry about economy' = Voted out of power. 

Unless something major happens, I'm 99% certain Michael Ignatieff will be Canada's next PM. 

Attack ads by Conservatives / Ignatieff with no clear message on their policy will bite them in the @$$ hard.


----------



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

"Unless something major happens, I'm 99% certain Michael Ignatieff will be Canada's next PM." We shall see, Mr. Mayor. I would consider voting for him if we did not have such a strong and honest NDP MP here in St.John's East.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ignatieff is an articulate pseudo-American. His long absence from Canada and his on-the-record statements will be his undoing.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bsenka said:


> 3) Liberals don't vote with their wallets. Wanting something for nothing is what makes them Liberals in the first place.


beejacon!!!!!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Ignatieff is an articulate pseudo-American. His long absence from Canada and his on-the-record statements will be his undoing.


At least Harvard is not that far away from Canada - unlike his French predecessor. Maybe the Fiberals should try to recruit an actual Canadian for once, seeing that the last one was, who, Pearson? Oh, there was Turner, but maybe the Fiberals would be better off avoiding the Beefeater drinking folk...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Ignatieff is an articulate pseudo-American. His long absence from Canada and his on-the-record statements will be his undoing.


I think more harm has been done to the Conservative for inferring that Canadians who live and work outside of Canada, or have recently moved to Canada are less Canadian. 

Ignatieff has lots of on-the-record statements from Harper in his attack-ad arsenal if he wanted, but that's not what their campaign will be about. Attack ads are the only thing the Conservatives will have to offer as usual.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

EvanPitts said:


> Maybe the Fiberals should try to recruit an actual Canadian for once, seeing that the last one was, who, Pearson?


You're on a roll today.  And people wonder why the Conservatives do so poorly in Quebec.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Let them continue. At least we can be assured that they will only be in power for a short time. Without Quebec, or Ontario...

Buh bye Harper.
<snicker>


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and he gave Ontario 12 more seats to hammer the stake in his coffin


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> and he gave Ontario 12 more seats to hammer the stake in his coffin


Don't say "hammer" - it attracts you know who


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Don't say "hammer" - it attracts you know who


doh. Now you've done it...



3...


2...


1...


----------



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

As the solisters and barristers for Lord Evan Pitts, we hereby issue you a writ to stop all taunts and jabs directed towards His Lordship. You have all been formally warned and served with this "suggestion".


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Back....To the subject of attack ad's
Why haven't the Liberals attacked Harper?

Doesn't the public know Harper is all for high priced gas in Kanada?

He's has to pay back the Alberta oil barons for their campaign contributions somehow.

I'm just glad that the Liberals used Youtube to voice their response to the attacks,
More people are digital savy nowadays than the Cons think.

Besides the fact that "Popcorn Hour" has been flying off the shelves in Canada.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the conservatives would scream themselves into conniption fits if any liberal dared pull any past Harper history..

you know, stuff like firewall around Alberta, that kinda stuff. But that's -history- though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

you mean like "mediocre socialist state"....or some such..

a couple classics



> Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion.
> Stephen Harper


and hilarious considering his current agenda....



> We have in this country a federal government that increasingly is engaged in trying to determine which business, which regions, which industries will succeed, which will not through a whole range of economic development, regional development corporate subsidization programs.
> Stephen Harper





> I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.
> Stephen Harper


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> the conservatives would scream themselves into conniption fits if any liberal dared pull any past Harper history..
> 
> you know, stuff like firewall around Alberta, that kinda stuff. But that's -history- though.


Actually, Conservatives would welcome that discussion.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

ehMax said:


> You're on a roll today.  And people wonder why the Conservatives do so poorly in Quebec.


They just had their largest rally in Quebec in five years this week. 

Harper a hot ticket - in Montreal

In Liberal dominated Montreal, 2300 people paid $150 each for tickets. 

That's more supporters in Montreal alone, than the Liberals were able to get to their *national* convention.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Actually, Conservatives would welcome that discussion.


I haven't met one yet. Every one of them, have nearly messed their pants if I ever brought it up.

Kinda funny though.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> They just had their largest rally in Quebec in five years this week.
> 
> Harper a hot ticket - in Montreal
> 
> ...


but too bad they're pretty much last place in the polls.

So much for the $150 tickets...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

bsenka said:


> Actually, Conservatives would welcome that discussion.


Which Conservatives?
Progressive conservatives, reform conservatives, theocons or neocons?
It is not one big tent.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Ottawaman said:


> Which Conservatives?
> Progressive conservatives, *reform conservatives*, theocons or neocons?
> It is not one big tent.


Real Conservatives.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

bsenka said:


> Real Conservatives.


Lame


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Ottawaman said:


> Lame


Not as lame as the question. Yes there are all different stripes of cons, good heavens did you know there are even red-cons? Fortunately no other parties suffer from any sort of divergence of opinion.

Oh wait this was an attempt at wit. Very good - you can list all the con flavours.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Actually, I missed some. So what's a "real" Conservative?

After Harper came to the forefront, it seems like it's a party that doesn't tolerate dissenting points of view. More so than in the past. This has always made me feel like Harper will be ousted if he cannot deliver the goods.
So if we go to the polls again this fall and the Conservatives lose or fail to gain a majority government would Harper survive?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> A formula that will fail to add up to a Conservative majority
> 
> *The attack ads are just part of the PM's wider, failed bid for a majority*
> 
> ...


A formula that will fail to add up to a Conservative majority - The Globe and Mail

Get rid of Harper, get an east coast real conservative in as leader, clean out the Neo-con hangers on....then maybe....
Wouldn't Charest be just the ticket.......the ghost of Chretien haunts not just the Libs


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, the pomposity of Jeffrey Simpson, still about as far from understanding the system as ever.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Get rid of Harper, get an east coast real conservative in as leader, clean out the Neo-con hangers on....then maybe....


SINC: You'll note the natural prejudice against Western Canada that continues to permeate these rants. 



MacDoc said:


> Wouldn't Charest be just the ticket.....


MacDoc must have eaten mushrooms again last night.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Get rid of Harper, get an east coast real conservative in as leader, clean out the Neo-con hangers on....then maybe....
> Wouldn't Charest be just the ticket.......the ghost of Chretien haunts not just the Libs


Keep dreaming. We all know you ain't ever going to vote Conservative so quit worrying about who they put in as leader.

Conservatives are happy with Harper. Conservatives do not want Charest. He isn't even a Conservative. I'm not sure there is much appetite in the country for another lawyer from Montreal.

Get over it. Get off the pot.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> Keep dreaming. We all know you ain't ever going to vote Conservative so quit worrying about who they put in as leader.


VanDave: If you wanted the Conservatives to lose, you'd suggest Charest as well!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Back to the topic.

I have an instinctive distrust of anyone that feels his own policies are so weak that he resorts to attacking his opponents.

That said I also assume all politicians are slime and sadly am far too often proven to be overly optimistic.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Back to the topic.
> 
> I have an instinctive distrust of anyone that feels his own policies are so weak that he resorts to attacking his opponents.
> 
> That said I also assume all politicians are slime and sadly am far too often proven to be overly optimistic.


True. I think that even as gullible as the Canadian public can be when it comes to attack ads, 10 second sound bytes. when that's all that comes from the government, the effectiveness begins to wear, particularly if it's the same tune, over and over, like these Harper ads.

Canadians will inevitably look for a new tune, new haircut, something, when they're tired of Harper 1.0 . Then we'll get another mediocre government to whine about. We'll have another drooling lot sending donations to support more stupidity, and lap puppies fawning over the latest 'actions' of the government.

Yippee.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Charest had his chance, and he was a complete dud. A Quebec Liberal will never be Prime Minister ever again.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bsenka said:


> Charest had his chance, and he was a complete dud. A Quebec Liberal will never be Prime Minister ever again.


A bold prediction but I really can't concur. Never is an awfully long time.
Agreed, however, that Charest blew it. That is, assuming he ever possessed a chance, of course! I don't think he was ever up to it in the first place.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

eMacMan said:


> I have an instinctive distrust of anyone that feels his own policies are so weak that he resorts to attacking his opponents.:


There is no attack in those ads though. It's simply a list of facts and quotes of Ignatieff. It's who he is. If they appear negative, it's because the viewer knows HE is a negative. 

The pattern is simple. First, tell everyone what they are getting with the opponent in that opponent's own words, then once that definition is set with the public and the media, follow up with "fireside chat" style explanation of what you're all about. Last election it was "Not a Leader", THEN the "sweater" ads. During the coalition debacle, it was "this is an attack on democracy" first, then "Leadership for Canada". Both times, they worked amazingly well.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ehMax said:


> You're on a roll today.  And people wonder why the Conservatives do so poorly in Quebec.


I think it is entirely unfair and blatantly discriminatory that we have a federal government that just can't find leadership from all of the provinces of the nation, not just those who have connections to Montreal. For instance, we have never had a PM from BC, Manitoba, Newfoundland or PEI - neither have we ever had one that was of the First Nations.

We end up being stuck with PMs that are fixated on scoring cheap votes, usually by doling out graft and corruption to Quebec - while entirely standing by while Quebec practices Jim Crow against our own people, and doing nothing, and I mean nothing, to uphold our most basic and fundamentals laws that are contained in the Constitution. Someone like Harper is like a breath of air, if only because he is not fixated in Quebec, and chooses not to push all of this separatist mumbo-jumbo. Separatism in this country started out as a quest for some fundamental rights, but was turned into a political industry by an endless series of perverted PM's who saw nothing wrong with their course of hypocritical policies that lead to the ballkanization of this nation.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I tend to think of attack ads as simply those ads which negatively depict one's opponent, rather than positively list the benefits/accomplishments of one's preferred leader. In this way, the conservative's anti-Iggy ads are classic attack ads. Focus less on what you have to offer and more on what the other guy is lacking. That's about the gist of it.

It can be a clever (if brutish) strategy, especially if you consider that Canadians like to vote governments out more than they like to vote 'em in. Certainly the Americans have had a lengthier history of this sort of thing.

Nor would anyone bother to run attack ads if they weren't demonstrably effective. A good percentage of the public responds to these primal tabloid signals.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> A bold prediction but I really can't concur. Never is an awfully long time.
> Agreed, however, that Charest blew it. That is, assuming he ever possessed a chance, of course! I don't think he was ever up to it in the first place.


Many said the same of Cretien...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Max said:


> Nor would anyone bother to run attack ads if they weren't demonstrably effective. A good percentage of the public responds to these primal tabloid signals.


That's the unfortunate truth. People scream bloody murder, and say they'll never work. But as long as they are sourced and true, they always work. I don't think anyone WANTS to use this kind of advertising, but you can't enact your policies if you don't win, and these kinds of ads virtually guarantee that you'll win if you get your message out first.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> I think it is entirely unfair and blatantly discriminatory that we have a federal government that just can't find leadership from all of the provinces of the nation, not just those who have connections to Montreal. For instance, we have never had a PM from BC, Manitoba, Newfoundland or PEI - neither have we ever had one that was of the First Nations.
> 
> We end up being stuck with PMs that are fixated on scoring cheap votes, usually by doling out graft and corruption to Quebec - while entirely standing by while Quebec practices Jim Crow against our own people, and doing nothing, and I mean nothing, to uphold our most basic and fundamentals laws that are contained in the Constitution. Someone like Harper is like a breath of air, if only because he is not fixated in Quebec, and chooses not to push all of this separatist mumbo-jumbo. Separatism in this country started out as a quest for some fundamental rights, but was turned into a political industry by an endless series of perverted PM's who saw nothing wrong with their course of hypocritical policies that lead to the ballkanization of this nation.


A "breath of air" who declared Quebec a nation within a nation, and spent billions buying votes.

No Harper had no fixation at all in Quebec even in the beginning of his term as PM.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> Many said the same of Cretien...


Cretin wasn't up to the task, he was just fortunate to come in at a time when the PC party was collapsing, and the conservative movement was only just starting. For all intents and purposes, there was no opposition. It would be like if Stockwell Day was still leader (shudder), and his only opposition was the NDP and the Greens. Instant HUGE majority for Day, and it would have nothing to do with him being a strong candidate.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> I have an instinctive distrust of anyone that feels his own policies are so weak that he resorts to attacking his opponents.


People don't care about "policies" or "issues" - they care about the dirt and mud. No one would tune into a TV show that touts the spectacular achievements of the stars. It's all about seeing the stars reduced, thus the popularity of endless such productions like TMZ or True Hollywood Story. Same in politics.

People didn't gather around and discuss Clinton's bad foreign policy decisions, or debate about the various issues in an intelligent manner - it was all about the dirt and scandal. No one could care about the hyperfine differences in how the Liberals would waste taxpayers money vis a vis the Conservative way of wasting taxpayers money. It is all about dirt.

Really, leadership isn't about creating a platform out of the populist whim, but out of the balance between a candidated virtues and vices. Vices are easy to highlight and carry great resonance. When it comes down to it, people don't vote for "the best", generally speaking; but "the least worst". Scandal happens when the least worst engaged in outrageous vices and is called out.

That is the purpose of a political debate - not to hash out some kind of policy, since every proposed policy is bunk based on fantasy and ideology - but to pick apart at each other to show internal inconsistentcies, or to show hypocracy or whatever vice is wont of being revealed.



> That said I also assume all politicians are slime and sadly am far too often proven to be overly optimistic.


It is all relative, though I think much of our attitude in this country is less related to ideology and more to the fact that so many politicians will say whatever to get elected - then go on to engage in their own orgy of vice and acts of class and race warfare. Instead of simply not electing these scurrilous people again, we end up voting them in because of some notion of electing a ticket. Like voting for Dhalla because one is big on Ignatieff, rather than just figuring that Dhalla is a glad handler that is in it for her self agrandizement, and perhaps going "against" the party line and throwing support for a much more moral and ethical candidate.

Much of the problems we have are systemic in nature, of parties not controlled by the consensus of the caucus, but by the dictate of the party whip, and the threat of political destruction. Same with the government, which can not act in an appropriate manner since the opposition is always seeking to destroy the government in an adversarial and not very beneficient manner.

We simply say "we want more democracy" - then avoid the polls in record numbers when an election does happen - and endlessly complain about having an election when a government is toppled because it is "a waste of money"...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> A "breath of air" who declared Quebec a nation within a nation, and spent billions buying votes.
> 
> No Harper had no fixation at all in Quebec even in the beginning of his term as PM.


A political strategy that obviously worked because it reduced the number of Bloc members, and worked to gain the provincial Liberals a majority against the racist Marois and her apartheid PQ.

But as I said, Harper has not been fixated on Quebec. There have been no referendums, no mail box bombings, to Adscam payola, etc. - at least none that has come to the public's eye.

Nor am I saying Harper is the top pick, but is certainly better than the predecessors, people like: Martin who staged a coup d'etat, then shoved out many MPs so they his slimy cronies could score ridings to run in; or Chretien who mishandled every policy and broke a myriad of policies and who only stayed in power because the PCs fragged themselves and Manning was too distateful; or Campbell who fragged herself while insulting the homeless in East Vancouver; or Mulroney and his attacks on Canadians; or Turner who was cashiered because he signed off on the biggest patronage binge ever; or Trudeau and the multitude of his crimes that brought the nation to economic and moral collapse...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Cretin wasn't up to the task, he was just fortunate to come in at a time when the PC party was collapsing, and the conservative movement was only just starting. For all intents and purposes, there was no opposition. It would be like if Stockwell Day was still leader (shudder), and his only opposition was the NDP and the Greens. Instant HUGE majority for Day, and it would have nothing to do with him being a strong candidate.


It appears Cretien -was- up to the task. 

the conservative movement was only starting?

Man this gets sillier by the page!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> *But as I said, Harper has not been fixated on Quebec.* There have been no referendums, no mail box bombings, to Adscam payola, etc. - at least none that has come to the public's eye.


Oh come on. Anyone with a tv or an internet connection would laugh at you.

Harper was clearly dancing with Quebec early on.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> the conservative movement was only starting?


Yes. Founded in 1987, elected it's first members in a general election in 1993. Just the very beginning.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well blow me down.

I suppose the conservatives I knew of previously were impostors.

Oh right. They're -real- conservatives. You guys are just priceless...
:lmao:


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> well blow me down.
> 
> I suppose the conservatives I knew of previously were impostors.
> 
> ...


PROGRESSIVE conservative = NOT conservative. Those are just Liberals wearing blue suits.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

riiiiight.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Meaning real conservatives are not progressive. That seems about right.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> Meaning real conservatives are not progressive. That seems about right.


Progressivism is left wing ideology. 

Progressive parties in other countries are roughly analogous to our NDP.

So, yes, real conservatives reject that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you see, it's important to attribute anything you disagree with, or see as undesirable, to the 'left wing'.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bsenka said:


> Progressivism is left wing ideology.
> 
> Progressive parties in other countries are roughly analogous to our NDP.
> 
> So, yes, real conservatives reject that.



Well put. I think progressive refers to the depth with which their hands reach into one's wallet.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Progressivism is simply that, being progressive. Conservatives would rather hunker down, plug their ears and make the world go away. 

Fortunately the world doesn't work that way. Things change, adapt, grow. _Things progress... _


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Progressivism is simply that, being progressive. Conservatives would rather hunker down, plug their ears and make the world go away.
> 
> Fortunately the world doesn't work that way. Things change, adapt, grow. _Things progress... _


there is a need within the conservatives, to distance themselves from any previous conservative governments. No this is a "real" conservative government. Long after Harper has been tossed, we'll soon hear abut how that was not real conservatives, or the right conservative, and now we'll have the authentic conservatives. Surely it'll be 'right'... that time.

And as usual, whatever is wrong with the conservatives, will always be the fault of the liberals.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That about sums it up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Progressivism is simply that, being progressive...Things change, adapt, grow. _Things progress... _


Change is not a euphemism for progress. Progressive has come to mean lowered expectations, restrictions of freedom and higher taxes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Change is not a euphemism for progress. Progressive has come to mean lowered expectations, restrictions of freedom and higher taxes.


No where did he say it was. You've projected that, and then some.

Perhaps to you, things changing, adapting, and growing, only means 'lowered expectations'. But not everyone has that sort of narrow, bleak outlook on life.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Change is not a euphemism for progress. Progressive has come to mean lowered expectations, restrictions of freedom and higher taxes.


Precisely. If an organization takes the name "progressive", you can take it to the bank that they will infringe on your liberties and raise your taxes. 

Many things done under the guise of "progress" are anything but. Take a look at the upheaval in the world today. A whole shipload of change there in the last year or so. Ask the people who lost their homes, savings, investments, and jobs if they think that was progress.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

wow deluded libbies abound.....

PIMCO - Investment Outlook- January 2008 "Pyramids Crumbling"

Bill Gross Latest Commentary - April 2009 - DailyStocks.com


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Precisely. If an organization takes the name "progressive", you can take it to the bank that they will infringe on your liberties and raise your taxes.
> 
> Many things done under the guise of "progress" are anything but. Take a look at the upheaval in the world today. A whole shipload of change there in the last year or so. Ask the people who lost their homes, savings, investments, and jobs if they think that was progress.


Well I suppose your pal and "real conservative" Harper's "progressive social policy" we can take to the bank as likely to infringe on our liberties then. 
:lmao:


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Any group or anyone farther to the right than Harper is not electible in Canada in my opinion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Any group or anyone farther to the right than Harper is not electible in Canada in my opinion.


What would characterize a government "farther to the right than Harper" that would make them unelectable?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

why is the sky blue?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> What would characterize a government "farther to the right than Harper" that would make them unelectable?


Any further to the right and, gasp, a goverment may actually get a grasp on waste, corruption and welfraud - which would be unpopular with all of the pocket votes that put governments into power in the first place. Oh, and can you imagine the hate-in the CBC would have! beejacon


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh yes and we all know how well conservatives keep their promises on fixing waste...

Oh right. I forgot. It's the liberals fault...
:lmao:


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Any further to the right and, gasp, a goverment may actually get a grasp on waste, corruption and welfraud - which would be unpopular with all of the pocket votes that put governments into power in the first place. Oh, and can you imagine the hate-in the CBC would have! beejacon


So politicians from the right are the proper financial stewards of our Country?
Is this pattern exemplified by Mr. Mulroney?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> So politicians from the right are the proper financial stewards of our Country?
> Is this pattern exemplified by Mr. Mulroney?


no OM.... the liberals made him do it...
:baby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> So politicians from the right are the proper financial stewards of our Country?
> Is this pattern exemplified by Mr. Mulroney?


No--his government wasn't remotely conservative. Big spenders, big tax hikes.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Ok, so from what I have read Harper had increased the size of government to new levels ( before the recession he claimed would not occur during late 2008). Is he a real conservative? Or is he a betrayer of the party and therefore a hypocrite who watered down his principles to hold onto power?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Ok, so from what I have read Harper had increased the size of government to new levels ( before the recession he claimed would not occur during late 2008). Is he a real conservative? Or is he a betrayer of the party and therefore a hypocrite who watered down his principles to hold onto power?


In my opinion? Hasn't done nearly enough to wear the conservative crown comfortably. I appreciate he has held the line on taxes, but hasn't done nearly enough to control spending. Considering what the Liberals and NDP would have in store for the country (Iggy: more stimulus, more spending; Layton: Iggy, you don't dream big enough!) Harper is preferable as PM.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> In my opinion? Hasn't done nearly enough to wear the conservative crown comfortably. I appreciate he has held the line on taxes, but hasn't done nearly enough to control spending. Considering what the Liberals and NDP would have in store for the country (Iggy: more stimulus, more spending; Layton: Iggy, you don't dream big enough!) Harper is preferable as PM.


But is he a real conservative? Especially judged on his actions. Yes or no?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> But is he a real conservative? Especially judged on his actions. Yes or no?


I thought the "real" conservatives first got elected in 1993. Or, was it another year.

Damn I think the liberals is playin tricks with me!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

The reason I ask is that I think he is actually a very to the right Conservative, but waters down his zeal in order to stay in power.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Ottawaman said:


> So politicians from the right are the proper financial stewards of our Country?
> Is this pattern exemplified by Mr. Mulroney?


Mulroney was not a conservative. He was a *Progressive* Conservative. There is a fundamental difference. 

You people who are pretending to be confused by this have exceptionally short memories. There is a reason why the *Progressive* Conservative party of Canada imploded. People who actually ARE conservative were tired of the only place where they could park their votes being conservative in name only. They wanted a party that actually was conservative.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes and we all know just how popular a hard right conservative party would be in Canada.

It's rather interesting how there are so many different flavors of conservatism, only one is the "real" one somehow.

But there is only one liberal. The ever deceitful, sneaky liberal that infects the pure minds, and souls of conservatives.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> It's rather interesting how there are so many different flavors of conservatism, only one is the "real" one somehow.


There isn't really "many different flavors of conservatism" though. There are *people* who are conservative on some issues, and not conservative on others. The definition of conservative doesn't change there, just the people. I'm not 100% pure-c-conservative on every issue. I'm more libertarian on some things. On a lot of them though, it's a more a matter of semantics as to whether libertarian and conservative are all that different.

There are a lot of people who are liberals through and through, but they just don't like the Liberal Party of Canada for various reasons. When those people get involved in politics, they generally head for the other national choice, then try to move that party's policies more to the left. That's what a Progressive Conservative is, a liberal who doesn't like the LPC. They may be a member of a party with the name conservative in it, but that doesn't make them conservative. It also doesn't mean they can't all work together. In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> There isn't really "many different flavors of conservatism" though. There are *people* who are conservative on some issues, and not conservative on others. The definition of conservative doesn't change there, just the people. I'm not 100% pure-c-conservative on every issue. I'm more libertarian on some things. On a lot of them though, it's a more a matter of semantics as to whether libertarian and conservative are all that different.
> 
> There are a lot of people who are liberals through and through, but they just don't like the Liberal Party of Canada for various reasons. When those people get involved in politics, they generally head for the other national choice, then try to move that party's policies more to the left. That's what a Progressive Conservative is, a liberal who doesn't like the LPC. They may be a member of a party with the name conservative in it, but that doesn't make them conservative. It also doesn't mean they can't all work together. In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.


ah. So "real" conservatism, exists only in definition.

Now, we're getting somewhere.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> But is he a real conservative? Especially judged on his actions. Yes or no?


I obviously have no insight into his personal motivation, but he seems to have only watered down conservative tendencies, in tax policy for one. I reluctantly support him for that, but have no taste for government bail-outs of business, for example.

I would jump ship awfully fast for someone who could deliver on true fiscal conservatism. A government that denies itself a river of cash, also limits its own ability to lord it over Canadians in other ways.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> So politicians from the right are the proper financial stewards of our Country?
> Is this pattern exemplified by Mr. Mulroney?


That is only when making the assumption that Mulroney was on the "right" of the spectrum, and not just a Fiberal who happened not to like the Fiberals. Mulroney was just as socialist as the rest of the pack, doling out cash for white elephants, engaging in endless scandalous behaviours, running an administration that was entirely filled with graft and corruption (which featured, at one time, a full dozen cabinet ministers being examined and charged by the RCMP for corruption).

Some of the things were distasteful to Canadians, like having good relations with the US - something that Trudeau would never engage in. But overall, through policy and through action, Mulroney had never shown himself to be anything other than a middle-of-the-road liberal glad handler, the kind of Kraft Dinner leadership that Canadians happen to love.

As for the right - I think that we have spent a half century or more in a state of greediness, where it is all about dishing out rights to special interests, and making decisions based on populism or payola. We just have not had a leader who steers the nation towards those items that are important to a society as a whole, where all people are treated equally under the rule of law and justice. We have too much of a patchwork of programs that serve to buy votes, and not enough fairness or sense of a need for integrated social engineering coupled with a real need for free enterprise.

Our little experiment with collectivization is a fraud, it serves to weaken the nation while burdoning the people with unenforcable over regulation. Instead of doing those things that we need, those things that are clearly successful in other nations, we cling to the old ways of making a fast buck today with no thought about the affectation this will have on the future. We have governance that is based too much on scoring a cheap half point in the polls, and resort to gangsterization and the subjugation of the public will in order to put forth some of the most myopic policies possible. It's all about being retrograde, of punishing the victims, in order to grab cheap votes for a system that is clearly dysfunctional.

The people, no matter what party they are in, do not want to see any real systematic change, because that might hurt their chances at the polls. For the Electorate, they already vote for Apathy and Lethargy, because being lazy and uncommitted to liberty and social justice is too much effort - and they'd prefer the baubles of cheap handouts and fake tax credits. We also live in a state of denial - we simply deny the corruption that goes on in the public service, and when it does come to light, well, we deem it to be much smaller than it really is, or is is "isolated".

Something like AdScam - sure, they found this money or that money - but really, the whole project was blackmail, a war against the People, in that this entire program was simply not approved by the people, and served nothing for the nation except to show that we are sullied with the kind of playground bully attitude where cash is thrown at a problem that would not exist if the Government had any iota of allowing for truth and freedom for all people, and had not spent a century being paternal and insulting to Quebec, as well as being the same to the rest of Canada. We all know if this manufactured problem did not exist, we would have freedom and justice for all Canadians, free of the Jim Crow of Notwithstanding.

This would be the keystone to a real right wing party - to look at the big picture and do what is right for the society as a whole, and to avoid unintended consequences, because in essence, that is what Conservatism is all about; while a real left wing party would destroy what there is and build a new beast and not be concerned with unintended consequences because if the beast falls apart, they would just destroy it and start again.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I find them quite amusing, I think the Liberals are upset that they have no new angles to attack Harper on for the next campaign. The fear mongering of hidden agendas and that he'll turn this country into a right wing Christian dictatorship the last two times have just made Canadians yawn. I'm sure the uncreative bunch the Liberals are, they'll end up beating the same dead horse again.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> I find them quite amusing, I think the Liberals are upset that they have no new angles to attack Harper on for the next campaign. The fear mongering of hidden agendas and that he'll turn this country into a right wing Christian dictatorship the last two times have just made Canadians yawn. I'm sure the uncreative bunch the Liberals are, they'll end up beating the same dead horse again.


^^^
That kind of "hidden agenda" attack just motivates all of those who want a right wing dictatorship.

Plus, as far as "hidden agendas" go - the Liberal record is self-explanatory, seeing as they break promises faster than people swallowed ice caps at Hortons on free ice cap day. What about the hidden agenda by which they promised to scrap GST, but really were all for it - and then were opposed to decreasing it. Or the hidden agenda where they attacked the Conservatives plan on curbing immigration because of economics - then once in, slashed immigration like no tomorrow. But then the plan really isn't "hidden", it's just say whatever to scoop votes, then do something else completely difference once in, oh, but hand out some flags because that is patriotic...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> I find them quite amusing, I think the Liberals are upset that they have no new angles to attack Harper on for the next campaign. The fear mongering of hidden agendas and that he'll turn this country into a right wing Christian dictatorship the last two times have just made Canadians yawn. I'm sure the uncreative bunch the Liberals are, they'll end up beating the same dead horse again.


No I think they'll just use his inept handling of things, his lies, the partisan BS etc.

But that's rather obvious anyway.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

whoa. 
Deficit to be 'substantially more' than projected

My we went from not running a deficit, to running a big deficit, to running a really really BIG deficit. That must also be the liberals fault.

I guess the 'we would have had a recession by now' recession is really quite bad then eh?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Latest Ipsos Reid poll:

http://www.canada.com/news/Tories+hold+sli...9387/story.html

A couple days of targeted ads, and right back on top.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I find the Ignatieff attacks pretty lame, poor from a production standard and lacking any real focus. Indeed, if you're going to attack the other guy for being arrogant (which he may well be, I don't know), doesn't that make people think about YOU (Harper) and what a cold stiff fish YOU come off as? It does for me ...

Today's story about the deficit on "The National" gave me a perfect (and amusing) little snapshot of the state of play of Canadian politics:

(all quotes paraphrased but roughly accurate)

Flaherty: Um ... I ... well ... we don't really know what we're doing ...

Ignatieff: Blah blah blah told you so blah blah EI reform blah blah zzzzzz

Layton: I've got a bill for more EI reform right here! Ready to go! Arf! Arf! Yap! Yap! Pick me! Pick me!

Duceppe: (regarding Layton's bill) If it's good I'll support it, if it isn't I won't.*

*this last quote is exactly what he actually said, no paraphrasing necessary.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If it had been my choice, no stimulus package would have been created--pure nonsense. But for Iggy to claim fake outrage at this time, after threatening to overthrow the government if the stimulus package was not large enough--is ludicrous.

I rarely agree with Chas, but the above script was pretty funny.

Further below the article groovetube quoted was a funny reader comment as well:



> This is the first step to bail out the Quebec Pension Plan. Then Duceppe will complain that 1) the gov't of Canada is infringing on Quebec sovereignty by funding a Quebec initiative, and 2) not enough funding was provided.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Latest Ipsos Reid poll:
> 
> http://www.canada.com/news/Tories+hold+sli...9387/story.html
> 
> A couple days of targeted ads, and right back on top.


oh yea. Right back on top..



> Despite the Conservatives inching ahead nationally, the party remains in deep trouble in Quebec. With 14 per cent support, the Conservatives trailed the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, which were tied at 36 per cent.
> 
> Bricker described the Conservative numbers in Quebec as "pretty much disastrous" and reminiscent of the Reform party's dismal showing in the 1990s.


After you're done sniffing the kool aid, read the rest of the article.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Latest Ipsos Reid poll:
> 
> http://www.canada.com/news/Tories+hold+sli...9387/story.html
> 
> A couple days of targeted ads, and right back on top.


I'd hardly call a 3 point drop by the Liberals back on top but one can always dream a little dream can't they.

Harper's ship has sailed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh.



> Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says the federal deficit will balloon to $50 billion this fiscal year, an increase of more than $16 billion from a January forecast.
> *It's believed to be the highest federal deficit ever.*


The highest deficit, ever.

Just recalling how the liberals were being lambasted for beating Bush's record spending.

You know this -has- to be the liberals fault.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bet he wishes he had the 24 billion in GST revenue back.... ( 2 years worth )

Then he could have funded the much needed infra structure and had modest deficits for two years.....

just like ALL the economists told him......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Bet he wishes he had the 24 billion in GST revenue back.... ( 2 years worth )
> 
> Then he could have funded the much needed infra structure and had modest deficits for two years.....
> 
> just like ALL the economists told him......


Bette I should have it to spend as I see fit.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> oh yea. Right back on top..
> 
> 
> 
> After you're done sniffing the kool aid, read the rest of the article.


I read the article. They had lower numbers than Iggy before. Now Iggy's momentum has already died out. It's not huge, but the CPC number is higher than the LPC one, and it was lower just a couple of days ago. Just a couple of days of really tame ads, and the numbers are reversed. The government in power during a recession usually gets absolutely HAMMERED in the polls, but the CPC has actually regained ANY lead (no matter how slight)? That tells you all you need to know about how weak Ignatieff really is. 

Even now:

•BC: Big Conservative lead 

•Alberta: Huge Conservative lead 

•Sask: Big Conservative lead 

•Manitoba: Big Conservative lead 

•Ontario: Conservative and Liberals essentially tied 

•Quebec: Liberals tied with BQ

•Atlantic provinces: Conservatives essentially tied with Liberals.

Don't forget, the Conservatives leads in most western ridings are so big that they could lose 10% (even 20%) of their vote and still easily take those seats. Also, for the CPC numbers in Atlantic Canada to be almost tied with the Liberals, what with the hatred over the Atlanic Accord, etc.... The Liberals must be REALLY weak there.

AND, If you want to see support going up and down like a toilet seat as the article suggests, just watch Quebec. As soon as Duceppe decided he wants to bother to take the Liberals out, he will. Support in Quebec for anyone other than the BQ is incredibly fleeting. If the Liberals are counting on the Quebec numbers to get them out of the opposition, they are delusional.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> I read the article. They had lower numbers than Iggy before. Now Iggy's momentum has already died out. It's not huge, but the CPC number is higher than the LPC one, and it was lower just a couple of days ago. Just a couple of days of really tame ads, and the numbers are reversed. The government in power during a recession usually gets absolutely HAMMERED in the polls, but the CPC has actually regained ANY lead (no matter how slight)? That tells you all you need to know about how weak Ignatieff really is.
> 
> Even now:
> 
> ...


God your such a... kool aid drinker aren't cha.

Conservatives have led big in the west for a long time. There's no change. Snore.

There has been a small see saw in Ontario.

The big news is, Iggy has turned the flat numbers around, and look at the showings in quebec!

When the liberals have plummeted to mid to low 20s, and Harper has magically lifted into the 40s, lemme know.

Until then, I'd put that order of champagne on hold for now...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Bette I should have it to spend as I see fit.


Sure, enjoy it while you can! Because someday, like all debts, it has to be paid off.

But as we all know, the conservatives, don't really believe in paying debts do they...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Sure, enjoy it while you can! Because someday, like all debts, it has to be paid off.


All debts are paid off eventually. I'll vote for the government that cuts its budget. If none of them offer that, I'll vote for the one who takes the least from taxpayers.

Right now they're falling over each other to spend more, then blame each other when the deficit rises.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> The big news is, Iggy has turned the flat numbers around,


No, the big news is, Iggy's 15 minutes are already over. 

Rinse and repeat with Bob Rae.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The main problem with the Conservatives in this area is that they just can't seem to front candidates that anyone has ever heard of before. Federally in this riding, we haven't had a Conservative of any stature run since Lincoln Alexander. I think if they find the right person, they can win large, since we have had decades of being stiffed with forgettable people who did little when in Ottawa.

It took years and years, but the NDP finally did find such candidates, and they swept up, which was easy to do when the Fiberals were only able to front some rather filthy people (which is saying something because even though it is hard to think of someone more scummy than Copps - the Liberals managed to dredge up Valeri.)

The Liberals really did pick up some name candidates - but no one bothered getting excited about our former corrupt Mayor, and the dude that is on the radio in the morning. In my riding, the Liberals completely struck out, not fronting a candidate until the third week of the election campaign, and their campaign was weak beyond all belief.

I see the Green Party picking up strength - the longer Mr. Layton glad handles, sells out to special interests, and utterly forgets the working class of this nation - the better it will be for the Green Party. (And the Greens are riding the wave, considering their recent best showing in the Mongolian elections...)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> No, the big news is, Iggy's 15 minutes are already over.
> 
> Rinse and repeat with Bob Rae.


hah. Really gets yer goat eh.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

EvanPitts said:


> The main problem with the Conservatives in this area is that they just can't seem to front candidates that anyone has ever heard of before. Federally in this riding, we haven't had a Conservative of any stature run since Lincoln Alexander. I think if they find the right person, they can win large, since we have had decades of being stiffed with forgettable people who did little when in Ottawa.


We had the same situation in my riding. Liberals won every time seemingly since confederation. None of the other parties ever even bothered to place a "real" candidate. I think the parties all tend to get in a funk of writing off lost causes. This can be prudent if the idea to to build solid support one riding at a time, but pointless if you never get around to the latter part. Around here anyway, the former finally came to pass in the last election as the CPC put in the first solid candidate I've ever seen in my riding from any of the parties, and she won handily.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bsenka said:


> We had the same situation in my riding. Liberals won every time seemingly since confederation. None of the other parties ever even bothered to place a "real" candidate. I think the parties all tend to get in a funk of writing off lost causes. This can be prudent if the idea to to build solid support one riding at a time, but pointless if you never get around to the latter part. Around here anyway, the former finally came to pass in the last election as the CPC put in the first solid candidate I've ever seen in my riding from any of the parties, and she won handily.


^^^
Some parties just love this kind of weakness. My riding was traditionally "Conservative", though it would be swayed by a notable candidate from any party. We had people like Ellen Fairclough and Lincoln Alexander, and Senator Sanford. But after Linc retired, the Cons fronted some rather obscure people. However, a PC was returned when Mulroney swept in, even though he was obscure, simply because people around here hated Trudeau and took that out on Turner.

Then all of a sudden the riding went Liberal, at the exact same time the riding was gerrymandered. They put in Keyes because he had been on the news, while the other parties fronted some rather obscure people. This was finally put to rest when the NDP decided to not front an obscure candidate - so the place went NDP in a moment.

I am surprised that the Cons just do not have any members that anyone has ever heard of in this area. But the NDP sure scored large, mostly because people heard of all of the candidates, and really the Liberal alternative was entirely distateful (featuring a former party whip that has out gerrymandered Copps, a corrupt former Mayor, and a former City Councillor that is on the radio on the most whishy-washy talk radio show in Canada).

Other areas around here went Conservative because the alternatives were not good - Burlington handed defeat to a Liberal candidate simply because she spent years in Ottawa not doing much of anything, and Halton handed Garth Turner his head for crossing the floor without their approval.

Ignatieff is in Canada because the Pension Plan is just so good! They have the Rule of Five - Five years in then you get the giant pot of unlimited gold...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

bsenka said:


> We had the same situation in my riding. Liberals won every time seemingly since confederation. None of the other parties ever even bothered to place a "real" candidate. I think the parties all tend to get in a funk of writing off lost causes. This can be prudent if the idea to to build solid support one riding at a time, but pointless if you never get around to the latter part. Around here anyway, the former finally came to pass in the last election as the CPC put in the first solid candidate I've ever seen in my riding from any of the parties, and she won handily.


That's great, Now you can all sing in skid row together,
Because the knuckle draggers will only suck you dry to stuff their own pockets.

They won't see a solution to the economy as long as the triplets are in power,
You are just as doomed as the rest of Canada in the false security of Liberal bashing.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

dolawren said:


> That's great, Now you can all sing in skid row together,
> Because the knuckle draggers will only suck you dry to stuff their own pockets.
> 
> They won't see a solution to the economy as long as the triplets are in power,
> You are just as doomed as the rest of Canada in the false security of Liberal bashing.


I am not sure what you are saying - there was no talk of Liberal bashing, just talk about parties that front no name candidates in ridings and then wonder why they don't win.

The Government can not provide Economic Salvation, and never will. The only thing that will bring the economy back is for business to get back on it's feet, because business is the only way that genuine wealth can be created. The Government can do a few hand outs and maybe do a few projects, but that is a stop gap and can not create any wealth because the Government is not an industry - they do not grow or mine raw materials, they do not process raw materials, they do not manufacture, and they do not sell anything.

Economic Salvation can only occur when business gets back to growing or mining stuff, or processing that stuff into goods, or selling those goods - all of which employs most of the workers in this country, and of whom the whole system of Government runs off of in the form of taxation. All the Government can hope to do is to fill in the gaps so we don't have hoards of hobos miling around, and to start up projects that can help some businesses continue to do business off of Government projects.

It doesn't matter who is in power, or who the oppositioners are, it's always the same thing, that the Economy slows down, and everyone expects these people to drag out some kind of holy grail policy that will "fix" everything. The fact is, the Government can't "fix" the economy, the economy will correct itself once the time is ripe for business to get back to it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> The fact is, the Government can't "fix" the economy, the economy will correct itself once the time is ripe for business to get back to it.


Exactly. Other than that it can only act to put a drag on the economy in various creative ways.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Ignatieff is in Canada because the Pension Plan is just so good!


This I doubt.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> The big news is, Iggy has turned the flat numbers around, .


Iggy is as much a burden for the Libs as Dion was. Watch him fail at the polls in much the same way. No one I know trusts the man or his motives.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Iggy is as much a burden for the Libs as Dion was. Watch him fail at the polls in much the same way. No one I know trusts the man or his motives.


well time will tell, how well iggy performs. Though I'm sure most 'you know' are in Alberta, would never vote for him anyway.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> well time will tell, how well iggy performs. Though I'm sure most 'you know' are in Alberta, would never vote for him anyway.


My bet is that there are plenty of savvy voters in your back yard of Ontario who do not trust the man or his motives either. Another Conservative government will seal his fate too.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> My bet is that there are plenty of savvy voters in your back yard of Ontario who do not trust the man or his motives either. Another Conservative government will seal his fate too.


I don't know where Ontario is at the moment, it's been a see saw, but they are neck and neck for the most part. Different story than with Dion.

Though it seems hell will need to cool down before the conservatives see any support in quebec.

Harper is done for.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure - another bit of champagne dregs wishful thinking.....



> .. In Ontario, the Liberals lead with 42%, ahead of the Conservatives at 37%. .... Tue, May 26, 2009


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

great waste of money - I supposed the ad agencies appreciate the largesse 



> *Tory ads attacking Ignatieff backfiring on Harper, poll finds*
> 
> snip
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | Tory ads attacking Ignatieff backfiring on Harper, poll finds


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that is trouble. Because that's all the tories ever had. First they had adscam, they failed to get elected the first time round, and the second time they only got a slim minority. Then they had Dion, and a barrage of attack ads. That's all they have. Even my good staunchly conservative friend said the other day he thought the ads were annoying.

Now what...


----------



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

I fully understand that the fate of any party wanting to form a government rests in Ontario and Quebec, but it will be interesting to see if the Conservatives do any better in Atlantic Canada in the next election. The support that they lost in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces cost them a real chance to form a majority government. We shall see.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> I fully understand that the fate of any party wanting to form a government rests in Ontario and Quebec, but it will be interesting to see if the Conservatives do any better in Atlantic Canada in the next election. The support that they lost in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces cost them a real chance to form a majority government. We shall see.


They have been so weak on the East Coast - and really, they need to reclaim their powerbase in the Atlantic or they will really be squeezed.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

What a bunch of Kim Campbells. Nobody knows how people will vote until election day.

I'll just keep on being impressed that someone who taught at Oxford and Harvard, led international centres there, and wrote 30 or however many political theory books, cares to run for office.

What other parts of Ignatieff's resume would the Conservatives like to highlight and promote?

And all of this in contract to the great accomplishments of Stephen Harper which are, in total, zero.

Really, other than killing off the Progressive Conservatives, what has Harper ever accomplished?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

HowEver said:


> Really, other than killing off the Progressive Conservatives, what has Harper ever accomplished?


He wore a tight vest at the Calgary Stampede!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

HowEver said:


> What a bunch of Kim Campbells. Nobody knows how people will vote until election day.
> 
> I'll just keep on being impressed that someone who taught at Oxford and Harvard, led international centres there, and wrote 30 or however many political theory books, cares to run for office.
> 
> ...


I'm waiting to hear about the great accomplishments of Harper and Flaherty, such magical wizards who should be so richly awarded for such unprecedented deeds.

Whatever they may be...

Oh wait! Here's one!

Trial to give free heroin to hard-core addicts - The Globe and Mail

Wait. The conservatives are giving out free heroin?

Holy change tactics batman. 

Or maybe that's how they're going to convince voters they're the magicians... 
:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> I'll just keep on being impressed that someone who taught at Oxford and Harvard, led international centres there, and wrote 30 or however many political theory books, cares to run for office.


So he was an egghead at a university with an ego big enough to want to be PM. These aren't necessarily qualities that make a great politician--except possibly the ego part.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Wait. The conservatives are giving out free heroin?


If you read the article you would see it's not as encouraging as all that, but I hope they would support the initiative long-term.


----------



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

EvanPitts said:


> They have been so weak on the East Coast - and really, they need to reclaim their powerbase in the Atlantic or they will really be squeezed.


Very true, EP. The Conservatives lost three traditionally conservative seats here in NL in the last election.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Very true, EP. The Conservatives lost three traditionally conservative seats here in NL in the last election.


Newfoundland AND Labrador.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Very true, EP. The Conservatives lost three traditionally conservative seats here in NL in the last election.


When the Election was unfolding, it was looking a lot like the Liberals were going to get in; until they were getting clobbered by the Bloc in Quebec. The East Coast is very important for the Conservatives, but I think it will take some time and effort to restore the public confidence.

Ontario is just voting in the most bizzare manner possible, so the Liberals keep polling high in the province even though we are suffering under McGuilty and his Maladministration. The Hamilton area has seemed to have returned to the traditional pattern of Conservatives in the outlying areas, and NDP being strong in the city, but quite often carried by big name Conservatives like Linc. People still want to vote for Linc...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So he was an egghead at a university with an ego big enough to want to be PM. These aren't necessarily qualities that make a great politician--except possibly the ego part.


Who the hell wants to elect "great politicians" anymore?

People get elected by pretending to be unassuming economists, and then turn around and screw the economy into the ground, all the while claiming that it isn't suffering as much as in other countries, like that's some badge of honour.

Your problem is that once Ignatieff is elected, he'll be prime minister longer than Trudeau was.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Your problem is that once Ignatieff is elected, he'll be prime minister longer than Trudeau was.


That's the single worst prediction I've ever read.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Your problem is that once Ignatieff is elected, he'll be prime minister longer than Trudeau was.


Is this an on-the-record prediction or the synopsis of an episode of _Sliders_?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> Your problem is that once Ignatieff is elected, he'll be prime minister longer than Trudeau was.


Justin Trudeau hasn't been Prime Minister yet, so it is obvious that if Michael gets in, he will serve longer than Justin.

I think Ignatieff, if somehow elected in the election that isn't going to happen for another year and a half, will have trouble staying in longer than Turner, unless he prorogues Parliament for 8 months, by which he might nudge ahead of Clark.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

HowEver said:


> Your problem is that once Ignatieff is elected, he'll be prime minister longer than Trudeau was.


oh. Now you've done it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I hear the NeoCons s of the border are down to 4 secure secure states.....just sayin'.....


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

MacDoc said:


> I hear the NeoCons s of the border are down to 4 secure secure states.....just sayin'.....


What? What the hll are you saying? Neocons is generally an American political group supporting a welfare state with a skeletal type of government. Please expand your line of thought and enlighten us.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc has got his own definition, sharonmac--and he doesn't share.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper and Bush bro in arms.....go get em in Afghanistan, Harper would have followed Bush into Iraq, lower taxes tunnel vision, free trade uber alle...climate change ain't real..the economy is sound.....etc etc etc....Two of the Bush, Howard Harper triumvirate are gone....only Harper left.....teetering...



> *Bush calls to prime minister: 'Yo, Harper'
> *
> Updated Mon. Jul. 7 2008 9:36 AM ET
> 
> ...


fast forward......


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc has got his own definition, sharonmac--and he doesn't share.


Okay, thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

sharonmac09 said:


> Okay, thanks for clearing it up.


Apparently he thinks I am a Neocon as well. I have tried for years to get a definition out of him and try to apply it to me..... 



crickets....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> I'll just keep on being impressed that someone who taught at Oxford and Harvard, led international centres there, and wrote 30 or however many political theory books, cares to run for office.


Maybe because the books were so dry that they had problems selling the 1000 copies they printed - so the fastest way of scoring large amounts of cash is to run for office. Well, there is a faster way, but law enforcement takes a dim view of taking the old truck and a large chain down to the bank to do a midnight ATM withdrawl...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> I hear the NeoCons s of the border are down to 4 secure secure states.....just sayin'.....


"4 secure secure states" - does that mean the other 46 are either just secure, insecure, or insecure insecure?

And that would make sense, since a Democrat governor will foster a certain degree of insecurity, and possible some kind of insecure insecurity like when Clinton was chasing skirts in Little Rock.

Besides, maybe NeoCon is just a graphical virtual console for computers, just like NeoPaint was a paint program. You know, X has been around for quite a number of years now, it's time for an update...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Harper and Bush bro in arms.....go get em in Afghanistan, Harper would have followed Bush into Iraq, lower taxes tunnel vision, free trade uber alle...climate change ain't real..the economy is sound.....etc etc etc....Two of the Bush, Howard Harper triumvirate are gone....only Harper left.....teetering...


Would you like some chunky dressing with that word salad?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Would you like some chunky dressing with that word salad?


It's missing the old favorite.... lap puppies...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Back to the original topic:

I just got an email from Don Plett.

The "Just visiting" ads were originally scheduled to stop airing this week. The CPC has decided to keep running them for a while longer.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that's very telling isn't it?

They don't seem to have quite the bang that the ones they did for Dion had. They've had a small effect and they want to get some more...

It seems more people I talk to find them annoying, the ones who thought the Dion ads were good too... So yeah. Run them a little longer. In fact, keep 'em going for at least another month or two.:clap:

I also think they need to be far more vocal about selling the CBC. They might as well as take a crap on Tim Horton's...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I found the ads in question to be quite informative, and reinforced the notions I already had that Ignatieff is here for his own agenda rather than any connection to wanting to serve his country. Wait, this isn't his country - he should have ran in the US. All I can say is at least Ignatieff is a Canadian citizen, unlike his predecessor and the Governor-General. and he isn't just some tool of the Quebec separatists like Chretien and Trudeau were...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> that's very telling isn't it?
> 
> They don't seem to have quite the bang that the ones they did for Dion had. They've had a small effect and they want to get some more...


Really? Dion's honeymoon period resulted in at least as good if not better numbers than Ignatieff got, and Iggy's lead in the polls has already essentially evaporated. Even the polls that still show him leading are within the margin of error. And that's during a serious recession when the incumbent government ALWAYS gets hammered in the polls. 

When ads don't work, political parties pull them right away in favour of a different strategy. They sure as heck don't EXTEND their air time, unless they are seeing tangible returns. The return doesn't have to be at the polls either, it could simply be an increase in donations.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Iggys number haven't evaporated you kool aid drinker.

Dion was elected party leader in december 06, he got a bounce, and inside 2 months, his numbers plummeted almost 10%.

And the conservatives are extending it, because it's all they got. It's all they ever had from day one. Adscam, corruption, negative ads. 

If they had another strategy, they'd use that instead of extending because the ads just aren't working the way they did with Dion. I guess that just has to burn you doesn't it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

No matter how you spin it or where you lay blame, that deficit will be Harper's complete undoing. Full stop.

Keep on dreaming that it somehow won't matter. Can't wait. 

Bu-bye.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So mrjimmy and groovetube--who are you hoping will take Harper's place?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

after watching Harper and his band of incompetent fools, one could only hope someone at least a little more competent and has the foresight not to liquidate government revenues so the deficit skyrockets even more just to buy votes.

You scream all you like about lower taxes, but someone, has to help pay down that deficit sometime.

It seems to me, that those conservatives were just frothing at the mouth to get in there and spend like no tomorrow until it's all gone. No, it doesn't just -seem- that way, that's what they actually did!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So mrjimmy and groovetube--who are you hoping will take Harper's place?


Someone less smug. Someone less evangelical. Someone less controlling. Someone less mean spirited. Someone whose agenda includes repairing not eliminating.

Someone other than Harper.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Someone less smug. Someone less evangelical. Someone less controlling. Someone less mean spirited. Someone whose agenda includes repairing not eliminating.


Well, that pretty much eliminates politicians, doesn't it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Well, that pretty much eliminates politicians, doesn't it?


Looks like. I read through those two posts a couple of times, but the only name I saw was Harper.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Looks like. I read through those two posts a couple of times, but the only name I saw was Harper.





> Someone less smug. Someone less evangelical. Someone less controlling. Someone less mean spirited.


Take the word 'less' out of my last post and I see Harper as well.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Is anyone else getting tired of this back and forth sniping? All snipe, no solutions. My Dad's tougher than your Dad. Just as long as we bicker they can do pretty much whatever they please. 

Poor us.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> So mrjimmy and groovetube--who are you hoping will take Harper's place?


Bob Rae!

Harper hasn't done enough to ruin the economy and make a mess of things - so it is time to go for the best, the most deluxe...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Is anyone else getting tired of this back and forth sniping? All snipe, no solutions. My Dad's tougher than your Dad. Just as long as we bicker they can do pretty much whatever they please.
> 
> Poor us.


That's precisely why I tried to inject some humour into the thread with my comment that your observation eliminated politicians. Time to lighten up a bit on all sides.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

> after watching Harper and his band of incompetent fools, one could only hope someone at least a little more competent and has the foresight not to liquidate government revenues so the deficit skyrockets even more just to buy votes.
> It seems to me, that those conservatives were just frothing at the mouth to get in there and spend like no tomorrow until it's all gone. No, it doesn't just -seem- that way, that's what they actually did!


I think this is proof that Star Trek was not wrong - there is a bizarro universe because I am pretty sure that in this universe, it is all about the Liberals frothing at the mouth to get in there and spend like no tomorrow, since it is the Liberals who embraced such financing for thirty years or so. That was the whole point of the Coalition, to band together the Liberals and NDP in order to provide Economic Salvation by bringing forth a program of spending and waste that would be unprecedented.

I may also be pointless to show that a 1% decrease in GST did not create the deficit, but rather, is the result of lower revenues caused by thousands of companies closing shop and tossing out hundreds of thousands of workers, who are no longer paying income taxes.

Without the decrease in GST, the situation would be far more grave, as retailers would have had an even worse Christmas season than they had, and even more of the economy would have simply stayed underground.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

EvanPitts said:


> I think this is proof that Star Trek was not wrong - there is a bizarro universe because I am pretty sure that in this universe, it is all about the Liberals frothing at the mouth to get in there and spend like no tomorrow, since it is the Liberals who embraced such financing for thirty years or so. That was the whole point of the Coalition, to band together the Liberals and NDP in order to provide Economic Salvation by bringing forth a program of spending and waste that would be unprecedented.


There's no doubt about that. This deficit is the Liberal's, pure and simple. They absolutely will be the one's wearing this. Even the CBC is saying this, and they NEVER support the Conservatives. On Don Newman's panel, and on mansbridge's, every single one of the hard left pundits are saying the Liberals have no credibility to criticize the deficit, when they and their coalition partners not only ordered it, but literally every single day stood up in the house and screamed that the Conservative were not spending enough. Even after the projected $50 Billion was announced, they STILL were insisting that it was far too little during question period. They are on the record that they would have spend several TIMES more. The fiscal management tag will be applied to the CPC in the next election, and only the CPC.

Besides that, the worst of the recession is behind us, the economy is already on the upswing, and virtually the whole world is marvelling and what an amazing job our government has done to shield it's citizens from what has been a complete disaster in most other places. We have the best government in the world, and one of the best this country has ever seen.



> I may also be pointless to show that a 1% decrease in GST did not create the deficit, but rather, is the result of lower revenues caused by thousands of companies closing shop and tossing out hundreds of thousands of workers, who are no longer paying income taxes.
> 
> Without the decrease in GST, the situation would be far more grave, as retailers would have had an even worse Christmas season than they had, and even more of the economy would have simply stayed underground.


Absolutely. For almost the first year of the US's financial collapse, we were actually in record good times, largely because of the tremendous stimulus boost the tax cuts and tax credits afforded Canadians. People have no idea how good we have had it for the last few years, we're pretty much the most fortunate people on the planet to have had this government in place when we did.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Iggys number haven't evaporated you kool aid drinker.
> 
> Dion was elected party leader in december 06, he got a bounce, and inside 2 months, his numbers plummeted almost 10%.


I'd say Ignatieff and Dion had the same problem - their numbers evaporated inside a handful of months. No need to insult people, it is just the fact that the hype around leadership selection just makes people more aware of a name. It is the KT Keller effect, because if you asked the people that selected Ignatieff to name which party Ignatieff was leading, I woulnd't be surprised if 40-50% of respondants said something other than Liberal.

What hurt Dion was not his public popularity, but the fact that he didn't have the support of his Caucus. In the light that he really didn't loose the Election (he could have forged a coalition deal that would give him the numbers), but rather, was being pummelled by at least three of the five main factions within the Liberal Party. This resulted in a feud in the Caucus that he attempted to eliminate by gaining power via a Coalition. No one in the Caucus could push him out once he had attained power by any means - and when his Putsch failed, he was done like burnt toast.

What it hurting Ignatieff is not of his own doing, but rather, circumstances. Parliament is only partially functional right now, most bills simply do not see the light of day, which is what the Electors want, since it was the electors that made the cloice to grant, once again, a minority. It is a simple fact that the Electors have tired of the various shenanigans that go on during a Majority - at least with a Minorty, the Government has to form a consensus to get anything passed. But Parliament doesn't see it that way, they want to grasp power, absolute power, and a mandate that they can use to clobber the Electors in the head with. 



> And the conservatives are extending it, because it's all they got. It's all they ever had from day one. Adscam, corruption, negative ads.


It isn't that it is "all they got" - it is the very thing that people actually want to hear. For all of the talk about issues, really, when it comes down to it, people vote based on the candidates vices and virtues (or the parties vices and virtues). And virtues are not even that important, it is all about vices. It goes without saying that at least inthe vast majority of ridings, people don't vote for the "best" candidate, they vote for the "least worst". None of this is new, Romans built entire campaigns based on throwing mud and accusations,and sometimes even had little songs for people to sing, like the infamous one that threw mud at Caesar claiming that he was "the bottom" when he visited an an eastern king when he was younger... 



> If they had another strategy, they'd use that instead of extending because the ads just aren't working the way they did with Dion. I guess that just has to burn you doesn't it.


It doesn't really work that way, and Chuck Schumer proved it by successfully destoying the incumbent when he first ran for the Senate. That was true filth, basically painting his opponent as a tool of the mafia. Other campaigns are even more dirty. The Conservatives are learning that it is an effective tool. Think about it, what do we talk about more in these forums, the ads where the Conservatives basically roast the Liberal leader of the day, either by connecting them to scandal, broken promises, or apathy; or do we talk about the ads where Layton is out glad handling some union workers in Oshawa?

It doesn'talways have to work that way, McGuilty got reelected simply by shoing pictures of himself not sweating, while showing other pictures of Tory being burned by the Education System.

If the Liberals want to succeed, it's time for them to haul out mud - especially if they stick to using that picture of Harper in his Stampeders outfit.

That's the main problem with the Greens - they are too polite. Now if they threw mud at the NDP, and talk about the fact that the NDP attacked workers in Ontario (really, it doesn't matter if it is federal or provincial, showing a picture of Bob Rae attacking the workers by forcing them into wage slavery is good for hundreds of thousands of votes) - or the NDP is weak on the environment, or weak on equality - they could score large. But being polite leaves them with a hard core of 8% of the vote, which gets them in no where.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bsenka said:


> There's no doubt about that. This deficit is the Liberal's, pure and simple. They absolutely will be the one's wearing this. Even the CBC is saying this, and they NEVER support the Conservatives. On Don Newman's panel, and on mansbridge's, every single one of the hard left pundits are saying the Liberals have no credibility to criticize the deficit, when they and their coalition partners not only ordered it, but literally every single day stood up in the house and screamed that the Conservative were not spending enough.


The problem with the Liberals is that they never had an actual plan, just a series of ersatz white elephants that were not coordinated in any manner. I think time tells the tale, and it is pretty hard for the Liberals to really make a case when they were the dominant party in Parliament for much of the 20th century. Dion's little Economic Salvation plan would have backfired, since I think the GM bailout is distasteful for most taxpayers, especially when most companies were never offered bail out money.



> Besides that, the worst of the recession is behind us, the economy is already on the upswing, and virtually the whole world is marvelling and what an amazing job our government has done to shield it's citizens from what has been a complete disaster in most other places.


Because of prudence, and the fact that our economy continually underperformed for years on end - we reaped the benefits because we had a shorter fall. Of course, we didn't suffer from the ill effects of easy credit because our banks are regulated and have to have assets to balance against their credit. Thus, we did not have any bank failures or bank runs, as they had elsewhere. It made Canada a good investment when things were crumbling elsewhere.

However, we do have some very real syndromes on the go, with the collapse of manufacturing which makes up the bulk of jobs and income in this country. I don't think we are going to head right into easy times, we have millions of unemployed and underemployed, have an educational system that is not matched the the job environment, and we have a terrible track record when it comes to graduates gaining their first job in the field. We also have the collateral of any number of pension plans that were robbed of cash, especially in Ontario, where the law allowed companies to underfund plans.

Many of our industries are no longer competitive, either because of obsolete production methods, excessive nepotism and management riddled with stupid decision making processes, or simply because business chooses not to respond to demands and making appropriate investments.

We also have a syndrome replacing real jobs in resources, processing, manufacturing and other free enterprises that create real wealth; we have too many people on the Government dole of infinite health care employees, a bloated and overpaid educational system, and other wasteful activities. Objectives are too short term, trying to plug holes from two years ago, but not having a plan that can put us into a competitive position in say, five or ten years.



> We have the best government in the world, and one of the best this country has ever seen.


Well, that's a little too much whacky weed. Our current Governments are a joke when compared to the hard core government of the old days. These days, it is all about passing legislation and banning stuff - and not enough about getting down to the basics and providing the real changes that would vastly improve the system. Banning stuff sounds cool enough, but if there is no law enforcement or real justice - it is a scam.

I think the continuing soap opera at CRNL shows that our Government can not take care of business. And I am not blaming Conservatives or Liberals - it is a mess and they waltz around it rather than doing the substantive actions that are needed. First, we need isotope production, and we need to do that on a for profit (or at least a pays it's own way) kind of system. Second, we need a good, solid, modern reactor design, or simply use a cyclotron or other accelerator to produce isotopes, rather than endlessly patching up 50 year old scrap. Third, we need a full accounting of where the money went, an exhaustive investigation to show where every dollar was wasted, with punishments doled out to those who robbed this program blind.

It's not just a CRNL thing either - we need to prosecute all corrupt officials, have a real system of bid tendering, and for common items that the government needs to purchase, something like the GSA system they have in the US, where "small" purchases have a sealed in price and can be done without some crazy tender process that is open to corruption.

All these things, our government has failed at. Far too many times, we see government officials and consultants "helping themselves", as if this was a Mugabe-paradise of a kleptocracy.



> ...largely because of the tremendous stimulus boost the tax cuts and tax credits afforded Canadians. People have no idea how good we have had it for the last few years, we're pretty much the most fortunate people on the planet to have had this government in place when we did.


It was less of any tax benefits, and more of oil prices that tripled or quadrupled, of which the Government raked in revenue large...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> I'd say Ignatieff and Dion had the same problem - their numbers evaporated inside a handful of months. No need to insult people,


When I see Iggy's numbers drop 10% inside a couple months, then I'll stop laughing at you.

So far, Iggy's numbers are outlasting Dions, and seems to be fluctuating within the margin of error. Unless there's a new poll out there showing the massive drop.

Since we all like polls so much...
http://www.harrisdecima.com/en/downloads/pdf/news_releases/052709E.pdf



> According to Harris Decima Senior Vice-President Jeff Walker; “In the first week of the Conservatives’ internet-based ad campaign about Michael Ignatieff, a significant number of Canadians has taken notice”. “Thus far, the effect appears to cut both ways – there is evidence that these ads are having a negative effect on Mr. Ignatieff,* but an even greater negative effect on Prime Minister Harper.*” “This initiative is a gamble on the part of the Conservatives, and its success will be determined over the coming weeks and months, by how two key voter groups react, specifically women and residents of Quebec.”


Yes, extend these ads!!!




> A majority of Canadians claim the Ignatieff attack ads have a negative effect on their impressions of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. Just more than half (52%) of Canadians feel that producing ads like these have a negative effect on Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. Very few (7%) said that the production of an ad like this has a positive effect on their impression of Stephen Harper. One in
> three (30%) claim that the advertisements had a neutral effect on their impression of Stephen Harper. Those living in Atlantic Canada (65%) are more likely to say the ads had a negative effect on their impression of Stephen Harper compared to people living in other parts of the country.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think Corrigan needs to rely less on labeling everything to try to get a joke across. That's the mark of weak cartooning.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I also look at this much in the same way that Harper apparently did. Sure, they left secret documents behind, but really, nothing that the public shouldn't know about anyways. That is different from leaving top secret documents at the girlfriend's place, a girlfriend that is connected to organized crime and motorcycle gangs, for weeks on end.

Of course, the content is different. The top secret documents were important military defense matters relating to NATO; while the secret documents were nothing more than written proof that AECL is a cesspool of stupidity and corruption, and that they are not competitive with any other nuclear contractor in the world. The top secret documents were an embarassment to Canada, while the secret documents were only an embarrasment for the people in AECL that were long engaged in acts of malfeasance, and to the governments that hid the mess in the first place.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what you can't seem to understand is, the handling of secret documents by a ministry, is a important matter, and one has to question their competence when they leave secret documents -anywhere- for unauthorized people to read them.

Even more disturbing if this was 'accidentally on purpose' to help discredit the AECL. There was even a neatly added talking point about cleaning up a liberal mess.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
There are no qualifications to get into Parliament, so long as one can get elected...


----------

