TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Political Debate jan 9
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »


Posted by Moral Hazard on Jan-11-2006 18:14:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
That ad was so bad even liberals realized it and pulled it. But the fact that the even had the ad and published it in the first place is pretty bad. And Mike Duffy owned that guy. It was hilarious to watch him squirm.


It was fun as hell to watch! I love that type of political theater.

IMO the ads that got through are still pretty bad. With the marching music and the words forming a kind of Hitlarian mustash on Harper..... no imagry there, eh? Attack ads are one thing but trying to equate someone to Hitler is a little much.


Posted by Matt on Jan-11-2006 18:17:

quote:
Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
lol...sure about that? wasn't our last voter turnout less than 60% nationally? I probably will vote but not with any enthusiasm.



in 2000 we hovered around 61%. Low, but not Canada's lowest which was 44% in 1898. Still, we are not in as terrible shape as the US, whose voter turnout hovers around the 50 - 55% area.

I think this election will surge back up to around 68%-70%, because it is a key election, and there are two distinct camps: those who want the Liberals out, and those who want to keep the Conservatives out.


Posted by Abercrombie on Jan-11-2006 18:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt
there are two distinct camps: those who want the Liberals out, and those who want to keep the Conservatives out.


This seems to be the best statement I have ever read in these threads. Totally sums it up.


p.s. Since when are shovels called guns?


Posted by MarkT on Jan-11-2006 18:41:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt
in 2000 we hovered around 61%. Low, but not Canada's lowest which was 44% in 1898. Still, we are not in as terrible shape as the US, whose voter turnout hovers around the 50 - 55% area.

I think this election will surge back up to around 68%-70%, because it is a key election, and there are two distinct camps: those who want the Liberals out, and those who want to keep the Conservatives out.


I agree...I suspect that much of Harper's support is a backlash against the Liberals, not explicit support for Harper and the CPC.

So what does one do if they are upset at the scandals but not at all happy with Haper and the CPC as the alternative? and don't really have confidence in the NDP to govern?

I'm finding myself in the position of prefering the status quo over Harper and the CPC, in spite of the scandals.

I also think that any attack ads are lame. It's one thing to point out defficiencies in your opponents and sling a little mud...it's quite another to fear monger. That ad re: military in the cities was nothing short of pathetic.


Posted by Moral Hazard on Jan-11-2006 18:47:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
So what does one do if they are upset at the scandals but not at all happy with Haper and the CPC as the alternative? and don't really have confidence in the NDP to govern?


In this situation I would recommend that you ignore the national picture and focus on who you believe would best represent your riding.


Posted by MarkT on Jan-11-2006 19:27:

yeah, Liberal incumbent Bill Graham works for me...

I am going to look more closely at the NDP candidate, Shapcott.

I will not consider the CPC candidate...and if they come to my door, I will tell them that if they turf Harper and amend their social policy standpoints, I'd be more than happy to consider them in the next election (I've voted Conservative in the past, at times, at various levels of gov't).


Posted by Yohan on Jan-11-2006 19:35:

I actually have high opinion of Bill Graham. Can't say I know the details but from what I've seen, he's been solid, esp. as MND.


Posted by Moral Hazard on Jan-11-2006 19:45:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
yeah, Liberal incumbent Bill Graham works for me...

I am going to look more closely at the NDP candidate, Shapcott.


Having a minister as a rep is usually a good thing as they hold more influance even if in opposition.


Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jan-11-2006 19:51:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
yeah, Liberal incumbent Bill Graham works for me...





Yeah I would vote for Superstar too

Actually, I have been considering voting for the Green Party.....partly because I would like to see them get the federal funding that the other parties get. I think with the extra funding they would do well for themselves and may actually get some Television time.

I am with you MarkT....I just can't bring myself to vote Conservative.....not with Harper at the Helm......but in all honesty I don't want to see the Liberals get elected or else nothing will change. The last thing I want is Harper to get the majoirty but I could accept him with a minority government so at least we canadians can get an idea of how he leads.


Posted by MarkT on Jan-11-2006 20:25:

my own vote is more settled than I implied.

I'm not at all dissatisfied with Graham as my MP...I'm going to look at Shapcott as an honest look at the NDP overall and a vote for him would be a vote for the NDP as a party, not a vote against Graham as an MP.

damn...if Hogan is still around, where IS the Superstar!?!


Posted by nacarter on Jan-11-2006 20:55:

This is one of those elections that I dread.

Although I'm a Liberal supporter, and happy about how the economy has been managed and their defence of the Charter, I'm unhappy about widespread corruption at the upper echelons. Wholesale change would be good for clearing the rot out of the party.

On the other hand, the Conservatives are going to try and turn Canada into the 51st state and call it "red-state North". Just what we need, the Christian fundamentalists having clout on Parliament Hill. Hmmm... I look into my crystal ball and see a spike in coat-hanger abortions once the Tories criminalize abortion (via the notwithstanding clause). UGH!

Doesn't matter who we vote for this time around, we're ALL being taken to the woodshed


Posted by Wyndham on Jan-11-2006 21:53:

quote:
Originally posted by nacarter
On the other hand, the Conservatives are going to try and turn Canada into the 51st state and call it "red-state North". Just what we need, the Christian fundamentalists having clout on Parliament Hill. Hmmm... I look into my crystal ball and see a spike in coat-hanger abortions once the Tories criminalize abortion (via the notwithstanding clause). UGH!


idiotic post.. get ur facts straight, explain how this is going to happen, cause i'd love to burry you on the subject. let me guess.. this is harper's "hidden agenda"? lol


To do with the mike harris/steven harper liberal attact add....
i was just flippin through the sun and read that Mike Harris was actually the one that nominated Belinda Stronich to run for conservative leader, lol kinda funny.... abercrombie what do u think of this? i know you support her.

quote:

How desperate are the Paul Martin Liberals? Well, their new attack ads that portray former Ontario premier Mike Harris and his Common Sense Revolution supporters as the big bad bogeymen of the federal campaign raise more questions about the Grits who launched them than their Tory targets.

The whiz kids who dreamed them up might want to consult with their star candidate and high-profile turncoat in Newmarket-Aurora, Belinda Stronach.

When she ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party, Stronach was nominated by Harris. Not just that, a large number of Harris's inner circle worked on her campaign.

And perhaps Martin's spinners should come out of their smoke-filled backroom long enough to ask their minister of human resources and skills development why it is that Harris is on the board of her daddy's company -- Magna International.

So, Harris did such a bad job running the province that Frank Stronach hired him to help run his company? Sometimes, attack ads have a habit of biting their masters where it hurts.


source


Posted by Fir3start3r on Jan-11-2006 22:37:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
http://www.stephentaylor.ca/liberalattack.wmv

Wow. This took away whatever was left of me wanting to vote Liberal.

That slimeball of a liberal lackey got owned by Mike Duffy though.


Um....wow???!!

More like....W T F

Talk about being desparate to stoop to that level...

I'm furious now....


Posted by Fir3start3r on Jan-11-2006 22:41:

quote:
Originally posted by nacarter
This is one of those elections that I dread.

Although I'm a Liberal supporter, and happy about how the economy has been managed and their defence of the Charter, I'm unhappy about widespread corruption at the upper echelons. Wholesale change would be good for clearing the rot out of the party.

On the other hand, the Conservatives are going to try and turn Canada into the 51st state and call it "red-state North". Just what we need, the Christian fundamentalists having clout on Parliament Hill. Hmmm... I look into my crystal ball and see a spike in coat-hanger abortions once the Tories criminalize abortion (via the notwithstanding clause). UGH!

Doesn't matter who we vote for this time around, we're ALL being taken to the woodshed


Far from it my friend....faaaaar from it...

As far as I know, Alberta is still a part of this great country and if you ask anyone there about that subject, they'd tell you the same thing. (I'd know because I have friends over there).
They're just as patriotic as us and as proud as us to be flying a Canadian flag.
Patriotism was NEVER a question in this election until the Liberals use it to scare voters (which pisses me off to no end).


Posted by ChemEnhanced on Jan-11-2006 22:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Far from it my friend....faaaaar from it...

As far as I know, Alberta is still a part of this great country and if you ask anyone there about that subject, they'd tell you the same thing. (I'd know because I have friends over there).
They're just as patriotic as us and as proud as us to be flying a Canadian flag.
Patriotism was NEVER a question in this election until the Liberals use it to scare voters (which pisses me off to no end).


I don't question Harper's patriotism to canada...however....I do see him as another George Bush.

I think he needs a chance to show canada what he can do....I just don't want to see him do it with a majority government...at least not yet.

He will not get my vote this time around (only because I believe he will get a minority government) but if he shows me he is not a back stabbing liar....which is what I think he is....then he may get my vote in 18 months when we do this all again.


Posted by Abercrombie on Jan-12-2006 01:20:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wyndham

i was just flippin through the sun and read that Mike Harris was actually the one that nominated Belinda Stronich to run for conservative leader, lol kinda funny.... abercrombie what do u think of this? i know you support her.

Thank you Wyndham...

I don't support Belinda, it's that I don't support some former music teacher with only reform party clerical experience with a mere high school education, for the sake of casting a protest vote.

Seriously, I can't take this election seriously anymore. It's my 5th federal election I'm voting in, and this one by far takes the dunce cake.

Now for conservatives with Magna... Keep you friends close, and keep you enemies closer. LOL LOL LOL

I'm going nucking futs.

Now for you WWE fans...

Is Belinda moonlighting as Stacey Keibler on WWE?



or maybe Stacy Keibler and Belinda Stronach separated at birth?


Posted by Yohan on Jan-12-2006 05:45:

How can you compare a hottie like Stacey Keibler to Belinda Stronach?

That's gotta be some sort of sacrilege


Posted by rabbitjoker on Jan-12-2006 05:51:

quote:
Originally posted by Wyndham
idiotic post..


Hi.

I'm certain that your comments are cohesive and fact based, but when you open with a statement like that - much of your audience tunes out or questions how rational you are.


Posted by Wyndham on Jan-12-2006 06:28:

quote:
Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Hi.

I'm certain that your comments are cohesive and fact based, but when you open with a statement like that - much of your audience tunes out or questions how rational you are.


it was a stupid post, so it got a stupid answer


Posted by infinity HiGH on Jan-12-2006 07:05:

quote:
Originally posted by Wyndham
it was a stupid post, so it got a stupid answer


it definately helped your cause


Posted by Wyndham on Jan-12-2006 14:59:

quote:
Originally posted by infinity HiGH
it definately helped your cause


my cause was to point out it was a stupid post.

quote:

a spike in coat-hanger abortions once the Tories criminalize abortion (via the notwithstanding clause)


my comment stands, idiotic.


Posted by Jayx1 on Jan-12-2006 15:52:

quote:
Originally posted by Abercrombie
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wyndham

i was just flippin through the sun and read that Mike Harris was actually the one that nominated Belinda Stronich to run for conservative leader, lol kinda funny.... abercrombie what do u think of this? i know you support her.

Thank you Wyndham...

I don't support Belinda, it's that I don't support some former music teacher with only reform party clerical experience with a mere high school education, for the sake of casting a protest vote.

Seriously, I can't take this election seriously anymore. It's my 5th federal election I'm voting in, and this one by far takes the dunce cake.

Now for conservatives with Magna... Keep you friends close, and keep you enemies closer. LOL LOL LOL

I'm going nucking futs.

Now for you WWE fans...

Is Belinda moonlighting as Stacey Keibler on WWE?



or maybe Stacy Keibler and Belinda Stronach separated at birth?


so youd rather have a career politician and spoil brat daddy's girl as your representative than a school teacher who is probably more in touch with the voter than the magna woman ever could be?

I dont get it


Posted by ShadoWolf on Jan-12-2006 16:14:

quote:
Originally posted by Abercrombie
with a mere high school education, for the sake of casting a protest vote.


Belinda Stronach also only has a high school diploma.


Posted by nacarter on Jan-12-2006 16:15:

My previous post is a somewhat exaggerated point, however I will stand by the overall tone.

Stephen Harper has consistently refused to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly Section 15 (Equality Rights). In numerous speeches when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition, he outlined what he felt were the flaws in the charter, particularly the open-ended nature of Section 15 that leaves significant room for, as he calls it, activist court manipulation.

Harper is also under significant pressure from conservative Christian and family groups to repeal C-32 (Same-sex marriage) and to reinstate at least a partial ban on abortions (Canada has had no abortion law since 1989). My point on 'coat-hanger' abortions has been taken seriously by the courts. The Supreme Court in R. v Morgentaler 1988 recognized that the illegal nature of abortion was significantly contributing to the widespread phenomenon of back alley, do-it-yourself abortions.

How strong is the conservative special interest influence? Consider that C. Gwen Landolt (President of REAL Women of Canada), Janet Epp Buckingham (Director of Law and Public Policy, Evangelical Assembly of Canada), and Phil Horgan (VP, Catholic Civil Rights League) are all part of the inner policy-making circle of the Conservative Party.
They're essentially a Canadian version of Rove, Libby and DeLay in the Republican Party in the US.

This leads us to my point on Canada becoming the 51st state. Based on reading a few posts after mine, this comment has been misunderstood. Harper isn't going to combine Canada with the US in any literal sense. However, there is no doubt that Harper plans to reverse the Liberals policy divergence with the Americans and develop a much more cohesive policy stance. Take the war in Iraq for instance. Although during the campaign, Harper has claimed that he would not have sent troops to Iraq, this claim is absolutely bogus. Especially if you remember the amount of time that Harper and colleagues spent grilling the Liberals over their refusal to contribute to American force strength. If Harper had been PM at the time, there is little doubt Canada would be in Iraq (and still there).

To conclude, neither the Liberals or the Conservatives are a good choice in this election. The Liberals with their 'culture of entitlement' and the arrogance that goes along with being in power too long on one side. And the Conservatives, with no interest in minority rights, excessive influence from the religious right and the desire to resume and excessively buddy-buddy relationship with the Americans on the other. UGH! I stand by my original assertion that Canadians are about to be taken to the woodshed.


Posted by Jayx1 on Jan-12-2006 16:18:

i also dont support a lot of the charter. Its a deeply flawed document that needs to be overhauled with something more equitable for all.

As for the american comment. The conservatives in canada are closer to american democrats than they are to republicans. Im just plain sick of the american bashing that martin continually engages in. American bashing does nothing more than cost a lot of canadians a lot of money (and jobs) and im sick of it.


Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.