GWB Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Wow, He is looking good. Abandoning Kyoto, on board for missle defence, screwing natives, man I can't believe what a job our election operatives have done with this guy. Now if only we can get you all some electronic voting..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gateaux Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThe Owl Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Wow, He is looking good. Abandoning Kyoto, on board for missle defence, screwing natives, man I can't believe what a job our election operatives have done with this guy. Now if only we can get you all some electronic voting..... Uh... was that supposed to be in purple?If Harper wins a majority, I'm thinking seriously about moving to Holland. Or maybe Vermont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YearsAlongTheSea Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 It's looking pretty grim. And I'd recommend checking out The Netherlands while you're in Holland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThe Owl Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 I'd recommend checking out The Netherlands while you're in Holland. Hey, I'm Dutch... I'm allowed to use that as shorthand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YearsAlongTheSea Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 I'm half dutch, so I guess I'm allowed to call people out on using it for shorthand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThe Owl Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Only half-allowed! Use it sparingly! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThe Owl Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Special note to YearsAlongTheSea: Actually, I'm only half-Dutch too, so you're right to call me on it after all. So sorry. I should have more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggrtrhhrtgg Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 liberal--"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."Live it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payce-ley Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) I'm Irish (full blooded) so am considering headin to Costa Rica or Asia until Harper and his goons eventually lose control (lookin like a majority rule now, worst news possible)being a free thinking, environmentally and socially conscious person who gets stuck living under conservative rule is like being in a grade school class where your teacher hates you from day one... just doesn't like people like you... nothing you can do about it, no one you can complain to and eventually all the other kids hate ya too... been there done that under mulroney, no thanks Edited January 17, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Well put. I see political conservatives under liberal regimes suffering from a kind of frustration of their expansive will, where political liberals under conservatives are subjected to a real chill. I find the latter much more disturbing. But these sorts of discussions are always cripppled by the ways terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are understood on either side of the line (sort of life "pro-choice" and "pro-life" - each seeing the other instead as "anti-life" and "anti-choice"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 i vote to spread the suffering around- a little here, a little there. keep everyone on their toes. someone in here, i think it was you DEM, posted a little blurb where a person, reflecting on all the negative media surrounding stephen harper (ie, he's evil), asked if they were to be feared as well because they believed in him. do all the people who are on the verge of electing a conservative majority have to be feared? if stephen harper is hitler, are all these people the modern day gestapo? or is our society taking a swing? i think as the world continues to globalize we're going to see a massive step away from the welfare state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 I fear those who would abuse their vote by voting against something, as punishment, rather than for something. In the wake of the sponsorship scandal and Harper's good fortune as a result, I can't help but feel that must the case here. It's not like their policies have changed much. The Conservatives are crusing to victory on a negative premise.I saw a "regular voter" on CHCH last night talking about how sending the Liberals back to power would make the Canada politic akin to a "dictatorship". People like that concern me more than a little because they betray their utter lack of insight as to what a democracy actually is. He's voting Conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 i'd say electing a conservative government, coupled with a few reforms, is the closest this country would ever get to a democracy, albeit still far from it. on a very simple scale, left = big government, right = small.i think there are far more left wingers who are pulling out the strategic voting in order to "STOP THE CONSERVATIVES". to the point where i think that susan powter chick could really come in useful as a last ditch attempt to stop the tide of momentum that's rolling through our country as of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Agreed with MarcO. This is mostly about people wanting the Liberal government out, not people reacting against the Liberal government's policies in favour of more conservative ones. Harper has had to make his party look like the Liberal party minus the corruption to gain traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 on a very simple scale, left = big government, right = small.Emphasis added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 CAUTION! BIRDY! I fear you have drank too deeply of Ayn Rand's koolaid. Unfortunately, the only antidote may be to actually get what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 lol yikes. what a scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaary world that would be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payce-ley Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) left = people having a say in running themselves, which can be twisted to be described as "big government"... right = government running the people, which yes can be described as "small government"the conservatives are actually a much larger, much more expensive party to manage than the liberals... and they're also exclusive and aloof, try taking your UI appeal to a Conservative MPHarper is currently running the most expensive campaign ever in Canadian history... victory by brainwash... "we need change" but what change are we getting exactly? a US-like law system leading to higher crime rates (amazingly enough, tougher laws and less social programs does not cure crime, it encourages desperation which results in more crime)... the rich are innocent, the poor are guilty... overall a poorer, lower educated society with less options to establish themselves... the loss of public health care... woo-flippin-hoohere in Hamilton last weekend the Spectator ran a full front page story slandering the local liberal MP because he 'flipped' a house and made a $150,000 profit... the MP is a real estate agent, poured a lot of money into the house and found a perfect buyer but the story screams "SCANDEL!"... needless to say the Spectator editor is a wealthy conservative who can't wait to start raking in more doughwe'll talk again in 6 years Edited January 17, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 . i suppose so payce-ley. as much as i normally despise the phrase "agree to disagree" we're all pretty set in our 'ways' around this place. it's just rehashing the same argument over a different issue. in the words of guigsy, i think i'm gonna tap out. i'm outta the country as of tomorrow until election day so it won't really be that hard to curb my political rants. six years today. wonder where i'll be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guigsy Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 in the words of guigsy, i think i'm gonna tap out. heheh.. now who's funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Birdy, I wish you would stick around to explain why you hate the notion of "agreeing to disagree" so much.I can't imagine a more civil and level-headed way to close the political gap between otherwise kind and good people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
payce-ley Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 (edited) I always hope for the best, but the pit of my stomach says this isn't good... the stomach is usually rightthing that really bothers me about Harper is the same thing that bothered me about Mulroney... I would feel differently if a broad minded, worldly elder statesman were running as leader of the Conservatives (still miss ya Joe Clark, too bad your party turned on you)... Harper simply acts too tunnel visioned and unimaginative to be running a country... he carefully only says things people want to hear, and discusses his intentions minimally... Winston Churchill he's certainly not... the idea of someone turning the country into America's "Yes Man" sickens me... the whole planet admires us, don't understand why we need a radical change in policy... the average Canadian is selling out over a few dollars they're never going to see... its depressingoh well, there's always Costa Rica ps, you're actually quite open to discussion for a Conservative Birdy, even though we disagree... a good quality, cheers Edited January 17, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 sorry marco, i do recognize the civility of agreeing to disagree.i'm just born into a family of debaters where agreeing to disagree is like standing up and walking away from the chess table. if ya know what i mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 oh well, there's always Costa RicaI agree. Canada would be a lot better off if we could get Harper to try to run for the leadership of Costa Rica. The Costa Ricans, though, might object...Aloha,Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now