poochy

There's an awful lot of ridiculous topic titles being thrown around lately, i dont suppose that has anything to do with trying to get a 'googler's' attention during an election, knowing most won't bother to read the lies being spouted, how for example something like "Heartless Harper Blocked Visas For Iraqi Kids To Get Organ Transplants" that isn't deleted...just wow, but yet there are standards here..

So whats your acceptable popular vote cut off? How about the 41, 38 and 40% the liberals got in 93, 97 and 2000? No? Or how about some of you stop bringing up this stupid red herring, find a legitimate argument, PLEASE, in your words, for the love of god PLEASE, fyi the Conservatives got 39% in 2011.

Don't waste your time, he will never stop spreading the same out of context talking points, he cares only for a liberal win, he doesn't care about the means to that end.

Olivia Chow and Eve Adams? You torpedoed your argument before you got it out of drydock. Im sure there are plenty of very capable women, but not those two.

Im not defending the poster you replied to, i don't agree with that person, but, you are not the judge, but you and some others here freely judge and convict, and often, you do this when you presume or imagine the opinions of others, mostly just to 'win' an argument that you can't otherwise honestly fight. O but the rest of us rabble dare not point out the utter stupidity or outright lies of others, that just isn't acceptable. Well, neither should be if the other isn't, and either the powers that be can't see it, or agree with the tactics you and a few others employ. For example when you comment on a status update and claim the government made a grab for votes with the Terry Fox Foundation when in fact they were invited, well, that makes you ignorant, or a liar, but, im not really allowed to say that. But call someone a racist for objecting to a niqab, even if they provide a good non racist argument for objecting, well that's no problem. So maybe you're unscrupulous, or you think all is fair in politics, and maybe the moderators agree with you, but i don't, and others here don't, and if you can judge who is a racist, i can certainly judge you as a liar. Meanwhile, while the the moderators are protecting some of you from criticism while allowing others to be called the worst thing you can call someone, a racist, there is a far left (insert word im not allowed to use) being allowed to spam the status updates without ever making a post, while they claim to want better debates. There is so much logical inconsistency in that i can't help but question the truthfulness of what they really want, but, in the end I guess it doesn't matter, we can all leave, and perhaps should, let this be another rabble clone.

Ok then, you don't care in spite of making direct reference to it, good enough.

"Fiorina went from happy hour status to 2nd place based purely on the debates. The Green Party could very well do the same given the opportunity. Who knows what can happen. We have one female leader of a political party. She should be on stage with the rest of the men." Seems like it's a bit about her being a woman, perhpas you think that's one of the reasons she is being exculded, idk, but those are your words, not mine.

Seems like it's a bit about her being a woman.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/paula-simons-please-dont-tackle-violence-against-women-with-pop-sociology Imagine the howling if Harper said this, now watch the hypocrisy as the liberals make excuses for him, even if you agree with him, how can anyone wanting to be PM be so stupid as to utter those words, in any context, at any time.

The term racist is used here as a catch all rebuttal by those that aren't capable of actually arguing on point, it happens time and again, You truly want to improve the quality of discussion here? Remove or sanction those that do it, but no one really wants to do that, those people along with the others who continuously revert to snide remarks when their lack of intellect paints themselves into the usual illogical corners make this place really difficult to read, and take part in. If, as Argus has stated, it is fair play to call someone a racist for suggesting that we as a country might not want certain people from some other part of the world for legitimate reasons, culture, security, cost, etc, then surely when those people who irrationally yell racist for no real reason make complete fools of themselves people should be allowed to point it out. What other worse thing can you call someone, especially now, in this world? It is a serious accusation, and should not be taken lightly. As it is now, here and elsewhere, if you even think we should screen people before they get here you're likely to be called a racist, but these are some of the same people who will call the PM a fascist, and compare him to Hitler or Stalin, and mean it, they aren't funny, it's not a joke, those people are either very stupid or scum, bottom feeders, you want to improve the forum? Really? Do something about the irrational content posted by some here, and if you truly can't see it, find someone who can.

Its a bit silly to compare banning gay marriage, which no one of any authority has even mentioned, to raising taxes, especially on the evil 'rich people', which in this country is a populist idea, and is supported, and to an extent, planned by this ndp leader. A dislike of harper is not really a good reason to pretend that the ndp isnt still the ndp

"I've just seen the appalling 'Friends of the CBC' ad one time too many - the one where essentially they paint the Government of Canada as murderous thugs similar to the mafia: the one where two men tied to chairs sink as in a mafia hit. It's appalling and they should be ashamed. The broadcasters should refuse to air it. If this group wants to end political influence on CBC there is a simple way to do it: refuse the more than a billion dollars a year of tax payer money they receive and earn their own way as other networks are required to do. Take that commercial away." General Rick Hillier, from FB Not only should broadcasters refuse to air it, the CBC should be loudly condemning it, and no matter how purposefully obtuse some are determined to be, it is a disgrace that the CBC is standing by and letting this happen in their name while pretending to be an unbiased public broadcaster.

Self evident.

You do know this is a political discussion forum right? Or, wait a minute, are we really deciding the fate of people and policies with our posts?...cool.

You cant pass a bill when the crazies in your party wont vote for it, he won't get away with being a liberal in an NDP's clothing for very long, he might be near the center, but most of his party is not.

And that distinction makes absolutely no difference in this case, on the CBC or not, these ads should be embarrassing the 'unbiased' CBC, and where do they show that embarrassment? I havent seen it, if they are going along with it, they are just as guilty as if the ads were on the CBC.

Yes, quite, again, where are all the complaints by the CBC about how bad this makes them look? Maybe they exist, you cant pretend to be unbiased while standing by and letting any group attack the government in your name, not when you are a public broadcaster that allegedly cares about such things, but the reality is, they simply don.t.

Right, but being paid for by the guild that represents many of the CBC employees, with this as it's stated goal, "To advocate in favour of public broadcasting and a strong, well-funded, pan-Canadian public broadcaster during this federal election, CMG is required by law to register with Elections Canada as a “third party.” http://www.cmg.ca/en/2015/08/14/cmg-registers-as-a-third-party-in-the-federal-election/ doesn't at all matter, and where can we find quotes from CBC personalities complaining about how bad this looks? So what if it isnt on the CBC, its the CMG advocating on behalf of the CBC against the government and if they were at all unbiased the CBC would be aghast by this and begging them to stop putting the ad on tv.

I simply dont believe that Russian forces are in any shape to fight a serious war, recently much of their air force was grounded due to 3 separate crashes.

At the end of the day, it's still $90,000 of repaid money. I dont really support any of them, im deciding which one I can tolerate the best, millions owed by the NDP, $90,000 paid back.

Well one things is for sure, the conservatives were terribly stupid when they went this route instead allowing this to go public and dumping duffy on the curb, it's only $90,000, of course the media would have been all over it for a couple weeks, but at least they aren't the NDP, just look at how they have been hounded non stop about the millions they owe, but it's a totally different scale of scandal, so it's no wonder.

Really? Harper is assumed to be guilty of everything at the duffy trial, while not even being on trial, but we should nonchalantly dismiss the millions the NDP have been accused of miss spending? And the almost zero coverage this issue gets is also another sign of how balanced our media is? I dont believe Harper either, but $90,000 of returned money, vs millions of unreturned money, coverage, about 98%-2%.

Idk, Mulcair comes across to me as, if not more of a centrist, then someone interested in power and willing to play whatever role it takes to get him there, which would obviously be a bad thing.