2011 Canadian Election Thread

[The Goon]

That is one creepy photo.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Does that mean that Harper should get a free pass for his scandals because previous governments were also bad? People need to be held accountable for their actions. Just because Chretien (and Mulroney before him, and Trudeau before him, etc.) also had scandals doesn't mean the current guys in power are off the hook.

Now, if you want to say that the economy is your #1 issue with everything else secondary, and you support the CPC because you believe they have the best platform in that area, I'm ok with that. Just don't sweep the indiscretions of The Harper Government(TM) under the table and pretend they don't matter because previous governments also had scandals.

I don't think that it means Harper gets a free pass at all, but based purely on a scale of 'ethics' I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever the Liberal party is better than the Conservatives. Do you REALLY believe that the government will becomore more ethical, more transparent with a coalition of Iggy/Layton propped up by the Bloc at the helm? I find that argument ridiculous.

When you also factor in the economy, the Conservatives become a much better option.

I've said it before and I've said it again; if the Liberals had put together a decent economic platform based upon balancing the budget and reducing spending they could have made a lot of headway with Canadians by pushing the ethics card. But instead they decided to be NDP-lite and are about to experience one of their worst elections in Canadian history. Epic blunder.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thanks. I covered that off for you in my post....I already know that is what the CPC supporters are going to say. For some reason the CPC faithful are happy to vote in favour of these issues, but would be absolutely against the party commiting these acts if it were the Liberals.

How am I supposed to vote 'against' these issues? By voting in the Party who likely led the most corrupt government in the history of Canada? Or by voting in a Party who will destroy the country economically? Or by voting for Seperatists?

I mean, not a lot to choose from. Kinda wish the Reform party was still around...

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by The Goon

That is one creepy photo.

What did Old Fart say about 40 pages ago?

"Stephen Harper.. Scary. Boogie Woogie!!!"

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How am I supposed to vote 'against' these issues? By voting in the Party who likely led the most corrupt government in the history of Canada? Or by voting in a Party who will destroy the country economically? Or by voting for Seperatists?

I mean, not a lot to choose from. Kinda wish the Reform party was still around...

It only took this long, but now you feel my pain. Maybe pick up a lotto ticket? We finally agree....

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Does that mean that Harper should get a free pass for his scandals because previous governments were also bad? People need to be held accountable for their actions. Just because Chretien (and Mulroney before him, and Trudeau before him, etc.) also had scandals doesn't mean the current guys in power are off the hook.

Now, if you want to say that the economy is your #1 issue with everything else secondary, and you support the CPC because you believe they have the best platform in that area, I'm ok with that. Just don't sweep the indiscretions of The Harper Government(TM) under the table and pretend they don't matter because previous governments also had scandals.

As noted, the ethics argument might have gained traction if the Liberals actually followed up by presenting themselves as being fit to govern.

Think about that. A lot of people looked at the ethics argument, and still rejected Ignatieff. That's not giving Harper a free pass, that is looking at the alternative and not being convinced it is any better.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Maybe I shouldn't have said doctored, but my argument still stands.

No, your argument doesn't still stand. You said that the photo was doctored. That means that, according to you, the CPC deliberately changed a photograph to make it appear as though it was Ignatieff when in reality, the original photo was just blurry. That's a lot different from the CPC gave the media some bad information that was ultimately cleared up (by info provided by the CPC, no less).

What really gets me is that the exact article that you posted said that the photo had not been tampered with, and yet, there you go, spouting off that the Conservatives are "doctoring" photos.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I don't think that it means Harper gets a free pass at all, but based purely on a scale of 'ethics' I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever the Liberal party is better than the Conservatives. Do you REALLY believe that the government will becomore more ethical, more transparent with a coalition of Iggy/Layton propped up by the Bloc at the helm? I find that argument ridiculous.

When you also factor in the economy, the Conservatives become a much better option.

So you're giving Harper a free pass then.

I don't believe the Liberals are necessarily better. I'm pointing out that I'm scared of the future with the Conservatives given the questionable things they've already done. And I've already said there doesn't appear to be a lot of great options if one doesn't like the Conservatives. But I certainly dislike the Conservatives much more than the other options. Unfortunately being in Calgary means my vote is likely not going to count for anything at all.

I think the economy argument is somewhat overstated, as others have pointed out we survived more because of banking regulations than the stimulus packages.

IMO the Conservatives should be punished for their actions just as the Liberals had been in previous elections. Maybe one day it will lead to electoral reform, or maybe the big parties will learn that if they want to stay in power they need to not abuse it.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How am I supposed to vote 'against' these issues? By voting in the Party who likely led the most corrupt government in the history of Canada? Or by voting in a Party who will destroy the country economically? Or by voting for Seperatists?

I mean, not a lot to choose from. Kinda wish the Reform party was still around...

Let's assume this is true, my life didn't really change at all, everything pretty much went along the same as it always was (if not better)

My fear would be that should the NDP take power, my life would change sigificantly through increased taxes and job loss. Those things have effects that spread beyond throughout all facets of society (cost of living, cost of travel in and outside of canada, crime etc..).

I guess when it comes down to it, those "scandals" just don't bother me that much, even Adscam didn't bother me that much, I just felt that the Liberals needed out because they had reached a level of entitlement. It's too bad because I really liked Paul Martin. He's the type of leader the Liberals need right now.

So, the fact that Harper seems like the only reasonable option right now to avoid a significant negative impact on Alberta's economy (and indirectly, my life) I'm going to vote Conservative.

[V]

Originally Posted by Slava

- Prorogation of parliament not once but twice

Larf. From the guy that claims the coalition talk is a non-issue.

[troutman]

If Socialism is bad, why are the Scandinavian countries rated the best places to live?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6132725AAoGdNo

Why must we assume an NDP government would lead to the apocalypse? I'm not voting NDP, but why are we so afraid, when socialist governments seem to work so well in other countries?

Or, is Scandinavian socialism a myth?

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Let's assume this is true, my life didn't really change at all, everything pretty much went along the same as it always was (if not better)

My fear would be that should the NDP take power, my life would change sigificantly through increased taxes and job loss. Those things have effects that spread beyond throughout all facets of society (cost of living, cost of travel in and outside of canada, crime etc..).

I guess when it comes down to it, those "scandals" just don't bother me that much, even Adscam didn't bother me that much, I just felt that the Liberals needed out because they had reached a level of entitlement. It's too bad because I really liked Paul Martin. He's the type of leader the Liberals need right now.

So, the fact that Harper seems like the only reasonable option right now to avoid a significant negative impact on Alberta's economy (and indirectly, my life) I'm going to vote Conservative.

From my mind to your keyboard.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by troutman

If Socialism is bad, why are the Scandinavian countries rated the best places to live?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6132725AAoGdNo

Why must we assume an NDP government would lead to the apocalypse? I'm not voting NDP, but why are we so afraid, when socialist governments seem to work so well in other countries?

Or, is Scandinavian socialism a myth?

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

This sounds like a reasonable answer:

Most economists agree that the Scandinavian economic model is very hard to emulate, especially in poor nations that cannot afford to impose the high taxes needed to support an expensive welfare state. This model may work in small, rich countries with homogeneous and well-educated populations and a long history of income sharing. But some analysts argue not forever.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by troutman

If Socialism is bad, why are the Scandinavian countries rated the best places to live?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6132725AAoGdNo

Why must we assume an NDP government would lead to the apocalypse? I'm not voting NDP, but why are we so afraid, when socialist governments seem to work so well in other countries?

Or, is Scandinavian socialism a myth?

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

Because it's socialists who produce the surveys?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by troutman

If Socialism is bad, why are the Scandinavian countries rated the best places to live?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6132725AAoGdNo

Why must we assume an NDP government would lead to the apocalypse? I'm not voting NDP, but why are we so afraid, when socialist governments seem to work so well in other countries?

Or, is Scandinavian socialism a myth?

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

Swiss bank accounts.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by troutman

If Socialism is bad, why are the Scandinavian countries rated the best places to live?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6132725AAoGdNo

Why must we assume an NDP government would lead to the apocalypse? I'm not voting NDP, but why are we so afraid, when socialist governments seem to work so well in other countries?

Or, is Scandinavian socialism a myth?

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

Because people are actually looking at their economic platform and realizing that it would be bad for our economy. I have no idea what how government in Scandinavian countries works, but I think that simply saying that since some type of socialism worked for them, that we should be giving it a try here.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

No, your argument doesn't still stand. You said that the photo was doctored. That means that, according to you, the CPC deliberately changed a photograph to make it appear as though it was Ignatieff when in reality, the original photo was just blurry. That's a lot different from the CPC gave the media some bad information that was ultimately cleared up (by info provided by the CPC, no less).

What really gets me is that the exact article that you posted said that the photo had not been tampered with, and yet, there you go, spouting off that the Conservatives are "doctoring" photos.

OK, it wasn't doctored my mistake. Good thing that you aren't voting for me personally I guess!

Point is that I was glossing over the photo issue anyway. Any reasonable reply to the rest of the list though, or are we back to "the Liberals weren't ethical ten years ago"?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by V

Larf. From the guy that claims the coalition talk is a non-issue.

Firstly the 2nd prorogation was because the CPC wanted to slience a whistleblower about the Afghan detainee issue. I fail to see what that has to do with a coalition save for the fact that it would've made the CPC look bad?

Second the reason that the coalition talk is a red herring is because (A) the majority of voters don't seem to care (B) it detracts from talking about the real issues that they should be addressing.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by troutman

If Socialism is bad, why are the Scandinavian countries rated the best places to live?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6132725AAoGdNo

Why must we assume an NDP government would lead to the apocalypse? I'm not voting NDP, but why are we so afraid, when socialist governments seem to work so well in other countries?

Or, is Scandinavian socialism a myth?

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

I think I should also mention that our proximity and friendship with the United States is both a blessing (our global importance, defense, luxuries) and a curse (keeping up with the joneses, obsession with capitlist culture and the "american/canadian" dream).


Let me also be clear on this. If I truly believed Jack Layton could eliminate poverty by 2020 (and not just because everyone would be poor so relatively speaking, no one would be poor) I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

My problem is he won't "shake up Ottawa" he'll tweak it just enough to make my life worse.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Point is that I was glossing over the photo issue anyway. Any reasonable reply to the rest of the list though, or are we back to "the Liberals weren't ethical ten years ago"?

As I stated, I don't have an issue with proroguing Parliament because it allowed the Conservatives to block a coalition that would have given the Bloc veto power.

As for the rest of the issues, some are certainly problematic, but I try to keep perspective on this. Of the issues that you listed, are any of them high on my list of concerns? Not really. Like I said, in 2005, I got all sucked into the Liberal Adscam, but looking back now, do I think it is something that should have swayed my vote? No. In fact, if I could go back to 2005, I might even give Martin my vote (although what really put me in favour of the CPC was their promise to scrap the gun registry). I feel that I am honest enough to say that, if such a scandal or controversy were to ever have any true meaning to me, then absolutely, it would sway my vote, but that hasn't happened yet, and let's be honest, to vote for our current alternatives, it would have to be quite substantial.