Why Harper must love the loony left.

[Russic]

Each side has their share of doom-sayers. Crazy liberals will claim a conservative government will end human rights and crazy conservatives will claim liberal governments will only provide services to pedophiles and drug addicts. It's all garbage and gets in the way of the conversation in my opinion.

I think what bugs me most is that people just look through their own tinted lenses depending on where they fall on the spectrum. I wish we could just say "losing x amount of money is bad for Canada". Instead it's either "this is the biggest corrupt government in history" or "hey everybody makes mistakes!". I find it all very tiresome.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't know whether the robocalls in Guelph changed the outcome (the Liberals won that seat), but there were hundreds of calls across Canada. In the robocall thread someone posted an affadvait which is pretty compelling evidence if its legit (I have no idea whether it is, but it was reported by a few news outlets).

To me though, no party should be engaging in this kind of behaviour. Whether it affects the outcome isn't the test in my opinion. Maybe they "only" caused a few hundred people not to vote....but that is inexcuseable to me and a non-defence.

That's like saying "I only took a little bit, so its not a big deal." I know that this is hard line, but I think that you might as well help yourself to as much as you like and just call yourself a thief in that case.

No one is saying that those responsible shouldn't be found and punished though. You are taking that and implying that it may have won the election for the Conservatives.

Originally Posted by Slava

- The entire robocall scandal which might've helped them get this majority in the first place.

As for OAS, I really don't see the change as that big a deal that it should have been a major election issue. It is two years, well into the future with lots of warning. It also came out almost a full year after the election. Perhaps the government was looking into the issue prior to the election but had no plans yet what the actual solution would be. Should they have campaigned on a platform to reduce OAS benefits by an unspecified amount at an unspecified time? That would be political suicide and no party would ever do it. The alternative would be to define the plan but if it took them a year past the election to figure it out they would probably have had to rush a decision and not likely have made the right one.

[troutman]

Trolling thread is trolling.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Russic

Each side has their share of doom-sayers. Crazy liberals will claim a conservative government will end human rights and crazy conservatives will claim liberal governments will only provide services to pedophiles and drug addicts. It's all garbage and gets in the way of the conversation in my opinion.

I think what bugs me most is that people just look through their own tinted lenses depending on where they fall on the spectrum. I wish we could just say "losing x amount of money is bad for Canada". Instead it's either "this is the biggest corrupt government in history" or "hey everybody makes mistakes!". I find it all very tiresome.

What really PO's me is when governments make mistakes, which usually costs us lots of $$$, and they don't own up and admit their error. I can understand mistakes... everybody makes them... but I hate it when they either try to cover it up, or shift the blame, or just try and muddy up the issue so much that nobody knows whats going on.

You know, I would respect a government more if the said... "Look we made a huge error on this F-35 thing. Some people were misled but that's no excuse as the buck stops here. Fortunately we haven't lost any money and we are doing everything to get to the bottom of it and correct the problem".

Admit your mistakes and move on. People will respect you more.

Unfortunately I doubt that this will ever happen because most of the people in politics are type A personalities and they probably have never ever in their life admitted that the were wrong about anything.

[undercoverbrother]

this thread is a fine example of what is wrong with politics...................

[GP_Matt]

Ralph Klein was often found admitting that he was wrong.
I recall the admission shortly after he got drunk and threw money at homeless people.

Politicians should take a lesson from that. If an apology can get you out of that it can probably get you out of most of your problems.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by troutman

Trolling thread is trolling.

Of course you would say this being the NDP or Liberal supporter that you are. ... not sure which, the only thing I am sure about is that you sure as hell didn't vote Conservative in the last election.

To you its a trolling thread, to Harper supporters its a celebration thread (1 year anniversary of the election of a majority government). Just depends on which side of the fence you're standing on.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

this thread is a fine example of what is wrong with politics...................

Why can't this thread be a fine example of "1 year after Harper achieves his long desired majority government and what he's accomplished and what he's failed at"? .... and a discussion therof.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Why can't this thread be a fine example of "1 year after Harper achieves his long desired majority government and what he's accomplished and what he's failed at"? .... and a discussion therof.

My point was poorly presented. All political threads turn into mud slinging, "you suck, no you suck more" type of discussion.

It appears the ability to discuss politics like normal adults does not exist.

Sorry for the drive by post.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Ralph was awesome. Why can't we always have a drunk premier?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Of course you would say this being the NDP or Liberal supporter that you are. ... not sure which, the only thing I am sure about is that you sure as hell didn't vote Conservative in the last election.

To you its a trolling thread, to Harper supporters its a celebration thread (1 year anniversary of the election of a majority government). Just depends on which side of the fence you're standing on.

Why can't this thread be a fine example of "1 year after Harper achieves his long desired majority government and what he's accomplished and what he's failed at"? .... and a discussion therof.

Perhaps you wouldn't be accused of trolling if you hadn't used the phrase "loony left" in the OP to belittle those whose political opinions you disagree with.

You and I both know you didn't start this thread solely to celebrate Harper's accomplishments. If you had, you would have chosen a less sensational subject line.

FWIW, I didn't vote for the Conservatives, but I've never claimed the sky would fall if they were elected. If I were to rate Harper's first year with a majority, I'd probably give it a C. He scores points for his party's handling of the economy, but he loses my esteem for the stupid Crime Bill, bungling the F-35 purchase, and not firing Bev Oda.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ralph was awesome. Why can't we always have a drunk premier?

This deserved more than just thanks. Sad to hear about Ralph's current health though.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Perhaps you wouldn't be accused of trolling if you hadn't used the phrase "loony left" in the OP to belittle those whose political opinions you disagree with.

You and I both know you didn't start this thread solely to celebrate Harper's accomplishments. If you had, you would have chosen a less sensational subject line.

Those weren't my words. They were the the words in the title of the article. When I post an article I always try and post the article title.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

FWIW, I didn't vote for the Conservatives, but I've never claimed the sky would fall if they were elected. If I were to rate Harper's first year with a majority, I'd probably give it a C. He scores points for his party's handling of the economy, but he loses my esteem for the stupid Crime Bill, bungling the F-35 purchase, and not firing Bev Oda.

I agree with you about the economy.
I disagree with you about the Crime bill.
I agree with you about the F-35 bungle.
I agree with you about Bev Oda... but then who knew she would turn out to be such a waste of space? I doubt she will retain her job in the next cabinet shuffle.

[Barnes]

NM

too slow.....

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Those weren't my words. They were the the words in the title of the article. When I post an article I always try and post the article title.

...and then chuckle about it.

[OffsideSpecialist]

Wow, I'm surprised the Citizen would have that kind of headline. They are usually my favourite paper in town as I tend to find them less biased than the others.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

No one is saying that those responsible shouldn't be found and punished though. You are taking that and implying that it may have won the election for the Conservatives.

As for OAS, I really don't see the change as that big a deal that it should have been a major election issue. It is two years, well into the future with lots of warning. It also came out almost a full year after the election. Perhaps the government was looking into the issue prior to the election but had no plans yet what the actual solution would be. Should they have campaigned on a platform to reduce OAS benefits by an unspecified amount at an unspecified time? That would be political suicide and no party would ever do it. The alternative would be to define the plan but if it took them a year past the election to figure it out they would probably have had to rush a decision and not likely have made the right one.

I'm not saying it won them the election at all. I just think that cheating is cheating. If you try to cheat and win regardless that doesn't absolve you in my opinion.

As for the OAS it is what it is. I just think that some public consultation before a proposed change like that isn't too much to ask.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Elections and political discussion has been degraded to the point where it now resembles chimps throwing poop at eachother.

I did not vote for Stephen Harper....but this is how I see it so far.

Positives
- got rid of the gun registry
- shrunk government slightly (this is a good thing to do every now and then)
- thank god he doesn't support carbon tax/cap & trade "climate" policy
- slightly more fiscally responsible

Negatives
- is incrementally destroying Canadian sovereignty under the SPP (North American Union)
- the crime bill that basically harmonizes with the U.S. system (minimum sentences etc.)
- wish he and other leaders weren't so eager to join Uncle Sam in military adventures

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

...and then chuckle about it.

This is the part I chuckled about...

Last spring, Toronto Star columnist Heather Mallick described Canada after a Harper majority. “Guns on the streets, gated communities, rampant drug use, unlimited anonymous corporate political donations, no government safety standards for food and medicine, classrooms that resemble holding pens more than civilized safe rooms for the young to learn ...” Deep breath. “Womens rights would retreat, including abortion rights, access to medical advances, and the right to go to court to protest inequality. Everything would be up for privatization, from roads, parks, and parking meters to schools and hospitals.” There’s more but you get the idea.
Hardcore conservatives love hearing stuff like that. It means Stephen Harper is hated to the point of loopiness by people they loathe, and so they conclude that the prime minister must be doing something right. Even if they can’t identify what it is.

[MarchHare]

I agree with you about the economy.
I disagree with you about the Crime bill.
I agree with you about the F-35 bungle.
I agree with you about Bev Oda... but then who knew she would turn out to be such a waste of space? I doubt she will retain her job in the next cabinet shuffle.

Re: the Crime Bill: I'm curious to know why you support this particular piece of legislation. It's going to be incredibly costly to build and operate all the new prisons that will be required, and everyone everywhere (including conservative "tough on crime" Republicans in the US) say mandatory minimum sentences are counter-productive and won't achieve the desired outcomes. It's a simple case of Harper putting his ideology above reality, costs and results be damned.

Re: Bev Oda: her most recent spending revelations aren't the first time she's been caught being reckless with the government's expense account. Plus there was the whole "not" fiasco from last year. There's plenty of evidence from even before the last election that she should have lost her place in cabinet.