Jump to content
Jambands.ca

Election Results


Hartamophone

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can't wait to see one of Harper's new super-jail, aka Collins Bay Pen, up-and-running in my old neighbourhood, which still houses my mom, Booche and bouch's mom and Davey Boy's parents. Great idea.

The middle class lost last night.

As long as it provides jobs I'm all for it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he does. He's not a bad man. He's just wrong.

Lots of people are wrong and decent people.

I disagree. I think that he is a bad person. he has NO CONSCIENCE. he is a bully. and he will do all he can' date=' fuck the consequences, to get what he wants. that's the scary part (well some of the scary part).

and he makes decisons based purely on ideology. not on evidence.

[/quote']

He's also quietly - and occassionally loudly - ridding his party of those that support older PC values and ideolgy. On an aside, I'd like to put a bounty on the heads of Tony Clement and Bev Oda and all those that voted for those phoney fucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and he makes decisons based purely on ideology. not on evidence.

I actually agree with this. I think that he confuses ideological principle for evidence. It is one of the things about Harper that has always made me nervous. There is a fair amount of footage out there of him as an (ideological) young man .. he has grown up, but he hasn't outgrown it all.

I think that he is a bad person

To each his own, but I don't believe this. I think that he has the best interests at heart, I just think that he has totally miscalculated. Worse, he miscalculated so early on that he feels the need to defend those positions that he made publicly, come hell or high water.

he will do all he can, fuÇk the consequences, to get what he wants. that's the scary part (well some of the scary part).

I am unfortunately on-board with you on this. We have different opinions about *why* he would do that (I think because he legitimately thinks it best, not because he is some cruel person out to destroy the country he has always lived in for some unknown reason other than being a deviant monster), but being finally handed his majority, I think that there will be a lot of 'do what he can, fuck the consequences'.

Shame, that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

his values are very out of step with a majority of canadians

by and large there are only a handful of folks out there who follow his philosophy

get to know Strauss Canada cause ya' just gave his most successful student the keys

well maybe wolfowitz is still considered more successful however he was always appointed, never elected. steve-o has to be one upping him on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now it's all starting to make sense. i remember you mentioning Strauss in the past.

Strauss on politics

According to Strauss, modern social science is flawed because it assumes the fact-value distinction, a concept which Strauss finds dubious, tracing its roots in Enlightenment philosophy to Max Weber, a thinker whom Strauss described as a "serious and noble mind.†Weber wanted to separate values from science but, according to Strauss, was really a derivative thinker, deeply influenced by Nietzsche’s relativism.[6] Strauss treated politics as something that could not be studied from afar. A political scientist examining politics with a value-free scientific eye, for Strauss, was self-deluded. Positivism, the heir to both Auguste Comte and Max Weber in the quest to make purportedly value-free judgments, failed to justify its own existence, which would require a value judgment.

While modern liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, Strauss felt that there should be a greater interest in the problem of human excellence and political virtue. Through his writings, Strauss constantly raised the question of how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist. Strauss refused to make do with any simplistic or one-sided resolutions of the Socratic question: What is the good for the city and man?

Liberalism and nihilism

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extreme relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism[12] The first was a “brutal†nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. In On Tyranny, he wrote that these ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.[13] The second type – the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies – was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a hedonistic "permissive egalitarianism", which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.[14][15] In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to advocate a tentative return to classical political philosophy as a starting point for judging political action

Link to comment
Share on other sites

his values are very out of step with a majority of canadians

Yes, agreed, which is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that only a minority of Canadians voted for him or his party. No argument from me on that.

by and large there are only a handful of folks out there who follow his philosophy

Quite more than a handful, I'd gather, but certainly a small percentage in relative terms (and yes, there is an implied Strauss joke in that sentence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This time, he has a majority, so as long as he can keep his own people in line (which I personally doubt, but that is another story), he can pretty much do as he pleases.

Why do you doubt this? I'd say he has done a pretty good job of it so far. Or do you think that now that there is a majority, Harper will have less control over his own people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he does. He's not a bad man. He's just wrong.

Lots of people are wrong and decent people.

This is what I try to think, this is what I want to think.

Some issues I canèt get my head around are connected to media control. One of Harper's first actions as PM (perhaps his 1st actio) was to eliminate the daily media scrum, replacing it with a weekly scrum that involves only questions that have been pre-cleared with his office. Also, his limit of five questions only during each election stop. I read a blog by one of the reporters on the Harper trail - apparently all reporters travelling with Harper decided on the last day to confront him on the five question limit. Harper flatly refused to answer or make any comment whatsoever on why there is a limit to the questions.

So I have to wonder, does he insist on these rules for Canada's benefit? Does he really think, "Now the Canadian people have things easier."

I honest and truly want to believe Harper acts with Canada's interests in mind, but I can't help but feel Harper's main objective is Harper-related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or do you think that now that there is a majority, Harper will have less control over his own people?

I do think that. He's had some trouble over the years maintaining control, both of Conservative MPs and the CPC supporters. But there has always been the carrot of a potential majority if supporters or MPs just hush up a bit so as not to scare anyone or rock the boat too much, at which point, maybe just maybe, they can be set loose under a majority environment.

Harper's speech last night gave me the impression that he understands what is about to happen, in terms of all of the pent up Reform-ism about to break loose, and is trying to pre-empt it.

Now Harper and his close circle have to face the fact that that time has come, and people are going to be looking for him to capitalize in the way that they have been hoping for since his first minority election. There are all sorts of people who have bitten their tongue and waited until just this opportunity to raise their pet issues.

Just recently, during the campaign, Harper's team had to do some major damage control over the abortion issue. I don't think that he is even remotely interested in pursuing that issue - but elected officials on his team are, as are the people who put them in office. They've waited. This is their last gasp. He won't be able to keep them under wraps forever.

There is a strong social conservative presence in this country that has been patiently (more or less) awaiting a majority win to push their agenda. They will see their time as now or never. Harper will want to distance himself from it, but the kettle will boil over. The lid was kept on too long and the water got too hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honest and truly want to believe Harper acts with Canada's interests in mind, but I can't help but feel Harper's main objective is Harper-related.

a) I think he wants what's best for Harper, no t Canada.

B) even if he acts in Canada's best interests, his perception of 'best" is much different than yours. And in some way, I can live with that. but in order to move his agenda forward he has relied upon lies, deceit, and bullying. That I have real issues with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MARCUS GEE globe and mail

Mayor Rob Ford hesitated before throwing his support behind Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. As leader of a junior level of government, dependent on the provincial and federal levels, he knows the risks of coming out openly for one party over another, even if his conservative sympathies are obvious to all.

But as the May 2 vote approached, his former campaign manager, Nick Kouvalis, showed the mayor polling data indicating that Mr. Harper's Conservatives could take up to 70 seats in Ontario, positioning them to win a majority government.

Itching to get into the fray, Mr. Ford overcame his doubts and issued an open endorsement of the Harper Tories, Mr. Kouvalis says.

"He wanted to get involved, but he had to play it smart. When he was sure Harper was going to win, he came out. He made a gamble and it paid off for him." Did it ever. Mr. Ford now finds himself in a sweet spot, waiting to collect the dividends of his gamble in the form of support from a grateful Conservative majority government. One of the leading lights of that government, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, happens to be a good friend and long-time ally of the Ford family. Mr. Ford stands to gain more allies if, as expected, Mr. Harper appoints some of his new Toronto MPs to cabinet posts.

It doesn't hurt that the polls are indicating that voters may elect yet another rock-ribbed, Ford-friendly Conservative, Tim Hudak, to replace Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty in October. What if, by the first snowfall, conservatives were in charge in Ottawa, Queen's Park and city hall? It would be a Ford fantasy come true.

When Doug Ford talked to his brother Rob on election night, the excited mayor told him "we'll be doing cartwheels in the street" if Mr. Harper pulls off a majority. Doug Ford laughs at the idea of his extra-large brother pulling such a stunt - "maybe if he knocks off 100 pounds" - but the elation of the Ford family is real.

Not only have they notched up another political win, the latest of many in a young but charmed mayoralty, they see all sorts of benefits flowing to the city from its tight relationship with the federal Tories. Though Doug Ford insists that "absolutely no deals were made whatsoever" for the mayor's endorsement, "we have their ear and they have our ear, and that's the starting point right there." He is hoping that, at the very least, the Tories will kick in money from Ottawa's $1.2-billion infrastructure fund to get a start on the mayor's planned $4-billion Sheppard subway.

Mr. Kouvalis says that Monday's results should also help put pressure on Mr. McGuinty to help Toronto - for example, by moving faster to shoulder more of the city's welfare costs. As Mr. Kouvalis sees it, "McGuinty's looking at these numbers and he's thinking, 'Oh shit, I've got to do what Ford wants.' " It remains to be seen whether the Tory win will be as good as all that, either for Toronto or for the Fords. Much of downtown Toronto went NDP orange, not Tory blue, and swaths of the suburban northeast and northwest of the city stayed in NDP or Liberal hands.

As for the money the Fords seem to expect, they should remember that their pals in Ottawa face a towering budget deficit, with a tight, self-imposed timetable for eliminating it. Funding suburban subways may not be their top priority.

"I don't think we're going to see a gravy train of federal cash coming Toronto's way," says Ryerson University scholar Myer Siemiatycki.

"More than anything, Mr. Ford needs money and more than anything Mr. Harper needs to save money. Between the mayor of Toronto and the prime minister of Canada, it is the prime minister who calls the shots." Still, it was undoubtedly a good night for Ford Nation and its uncrowned king. No wonder he feels like doing cartwheels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what the Guardian has to say about Harper

What happens now is the full-scale Americanisation of Canada, hinted at over the past seven years by Harper – he fired people who talked too loudly about this – but not acted upon because Canadians have always valued their distinctiveness from the angry country in decline south of the border.

It doesn't win votes to say you want to de-Canadianise Canada, long known as a bastion of free healthcare, destination of refugees and immigrants, and a place that worries about climate change. But Harper once sneeringly referred to Canada as a typical northern European "welfare state".

Harper's Conservatives will pass an omnibus law and order bill within 100 days to make jail sentences mandatory for many offences, and begin building super-jails, copying a system that even its authors, the Americans, have begun to abandon. The huge purchase of fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, which was an election issue, will now go ahead – Harper says it will cost $9bn, government auditors say $39bn – as will massive military shipbuilding.

The Evangelist Christian right is at the heart of Harper's Conservative party, and after years of being shushed, it will now demand an end to a number of things, including abortion rights. Canada has no law against abortions, and they are available free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw this and it brought this thread to mind.

John Oliver waxes funny on mandatory voting in Australia (about half-way through the clip)

He suggests that drinking has become such an issue on election day (because it is a day off - has to be, given the mandatory nature) that Australia has been considering mandating all bars/pubs be closed on an election day.

He also references a report that found that being drunk makes people more likely to vote towards the right-leaning parties.

I get that it is a stand-up bit (and pretty funny!), but I'd love to find that report. Maybe my Google-fu is weak at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...