|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 19, 2013 15:48:12 GMT -5
Percentage of voters who actually take the time to thouroughly read all the parties program to make a good educated choice is probalbly not even 1%. Hard to argue this point, Doc. Yet, I found there to be a lot of voters in the last election who may not have read over the party platforms, but they didn't have any options other than Harper. The other parties shot themselves in the feet when they decided to try forming a coalition, thus forcing an unnecessary election. One leader to really chose from and an unnecessary election to an election-weary voter base. Some of the people I talked to were pissed off and their vote may have reflected that. Unfortunately, mine did. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 19, 2013 15:59:38 GMT -5
...I guess with the great success of Ignatief and Dion, they figured it could be easier to put subtance in a guy that already has some personality than the other way around. By the time the lefty media finish washing and promoting his balls, he's going to look like Einstein to the slow ones. Thankfully the first 'what would do as prime minister' was an utter disaster. That was the media's attempt to prepare us for the Prince......and the Prince had no clothes. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 19, 2013 16:06:27 GMT -5
I don't think he's an air-head at all....and any other party would snap him up in a minute if he was a free-agent. Imagine Harper's people with the chance to groom him....it'd be like Lafleur taking over from Beliveau. Ha! On looks? Maybe, but absolutely never on values. A conservative equivicating on terrorism is instant political death. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 19, 2013 16:17:11 GMT -5
if Marg Delahunty were to do the Paul Martin schtick on Steven Harper she'd be saying "but then again, you're not a Conservative".
It's going to be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 19, 2013 16:46:39 GMT -5
I think I saw Stockwell Day on tv the other day ...
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 19, 2013 17:29:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 19, 2013 17:35:41 GMT -5
Looks more like Preston Manning.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 20, 2013 7:55:35 GMT -5
Manning now thinks he is the think tank of the right. Amongst his brilliant ideas is to embrace left causes so as to stay in power. To him it's not about principles but of political convenience and power. That bothers me a lot. If PC become tax and spenders as well as second rate Gia worshippers then I might as well vote Fiberals. I'm already seriously at odds with their big brother privacy views so I don't have far to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 20, 2013 8:57:36 GMT -5
Political expediency, HA. You can't do anything if you are not in power, and you will not attain power if you hold too tightly to the right . . . hence the move to the centre.
Problems abound, because you let go of your core values. With the Conservatives it was bumping up the deficit at the start of the "economic crisis" [giving into the Lib/NDP demands . . . how's that going, Steve . . . now they're on you because you spend too much!]. However, history shows us nothing different. Mulroney did the same -- talked about balanced budgets but continued to spend like a Trudeau.
I think that though the Conservatives will win the next election it will be because of NDP/Lib vote splitting. The Conservative core will remain, the left/centre vote will flow between the other two. The Conservatives have nothing to boast about, really [10 years of "good economy"? what else?] so all they can campaign on is "we're better than them/we have experience"; the other parties will say "ya, right, we have fresh ideas [and we'll take your money and we'll offer fresh programs]"
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 20, 2013 11:19:55 GMT -5
What "else"? What do I want from a government? All I want from them is to keep us safe and have a sound economic policy. I don't want politicians running my life or brow beating me , or worse, legislating in the agenda du jour so they can con some votes. I don't want an obami class warfare and I don't want McStupids 100 billion dollar to prop up the sky falling. FFS.......I certainly don't need any social engineering from self aggrandizing, good hair vote lickers.
Am I asking for too much?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 20, 2013 12:34:57 GMT -5
Am I asking for too much? yes. have you not learned yet that a government has only one responsibility, and that is to be reelected? ok responsibility is the wrong word. priority |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 20, 2013 14:27:13 GMT -5
I'm already seriously at odds with their big brother privacy views so I don't have far to go. Harper's control freakness has bothered me from the beginning. It's one thing to try and keep your dumb minions from spewing the 'wrong' message, but it's another to muzzle scientists and anyone else who wants to criticize you or even just talk about the state of affairs. So you're a registered society and you don't like our policies? Then we'll pull your ability to issue tax receipts. Nice. When you close your ears to all criticism, you're going to miss something that is really important. It's also so paternalistic an approach, that it's dangerous. One step away from Naziism or extreme Communism. Take your pick, neither one of which is what we need. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 20, 2013 15:37:51 GMT -5
Really? Amazing how Harper is a "control freak" but when Mulcair muzzles his whacko crowd, its "party discipline". If the liberal henchman do it, its party discipline, but Harper doing it is evil control freakishness. Lets face it, the lefty media is apoplectic that it can't feed on the Harper clan so they spin the control freak bull.
As for the "muzzled" scientist, they can leave their cushy government jobs any time they want. The government is their employer and as such, ALL research belongs to them. Correct me if I'm wrong but seriously doubt that if for example I was a bank manager, I could publicly spout anything related to my bank. Nor spout my private banking agenda or criticism and still have a job. Or if I was a biologist working for a pharmaceutical company.or a geologist working for an oil company. Yet, anyone getting a big fat government paycheck should have a magical right not only to criticize their employer, but disclose research that suits their personal agenda. Like I said before, they can leave their big fat government jobs and work in the private sector.
As for any argument that it hides critical public information, balderdash. We have never seen any western government hide Ebola outbreaks, or hn1, or anything related to health. Most if not all of the whining is coming from self righteous environmental groups who want scientist that agree with their agenda to be able to use their position in government to attract and spout. And needless to say, if there are any scientist who would say anything that doesn't suit their agenda, well then, they are brainwashed government robots controlled by evil Dr. Harperoid. Funny how that works....
As for registered organizations, that bullcrap spin for agenda mongering environmental groups who ABUSE the tax system by declaring charitable status. When exactly did multimillionaire Saint Suzuki and company become a charity? Or the US based environmental Tides group become a charity? What about me? Should I be a charity? Lord knows I can use the tax break. Although I do like the spin of environmental groups trying to bs themselves as "registered organizations" rather then self serving agenda mongers.
As for Nazism and extreme communism...a wee bit of hyperbole there. A wee bit. A tiny wee bit.
Don't like Harper, use your vote.
Up next....Harper's really, really, really secret agenda......
|
|
