Slavik44

People who choose not to vote give up their right to complain about anything politicians do.I think the original poster is doing the right thing: if enough people spoiled their ballots (let say 20%) then it would become the story of the election - the politicians would like to ignore it but it could trigger a national discussion on voting reform. Simply not voting will change nothing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And this is why voter apathy will continue, the average Canadian does not get a political hard on at the thought of "electoral reform" or "spoiling a ballot" I think such a suggestion is just as out of tune with the average Canadian as politicians themselves. You may as well be talking a different language, no average Canadian shares these dreams and you really cannot legislate them to do so. If anythign what we are going through no is just the end result of boring old politics as usual. Canadian politics and Political parties are a violation of every Marketign principle out there, we have a shitty product, with sub par promotion, and the lines of comunication are not available to Canadians. What we need is Extreme Make over: Politics Edition, And I don't mean lets through 70 names on a ballot and rank them. You reap what you sow, in the end polticians are viewed as corrupt liars (and not just the liberals) because of this it is avoided like the plague, admit it even with the politicaly inclined on here many of us probabley are not card carrying members of any party. Who here is genuinley attracted to sitting in a room with a bunch of fighting 2 year olds, please raise your hand. I don't think there are many, but we are surrounded by just that, politicans fightign each other tearing down reputations to get votes. In the end it just turns people off and less people vote, critisizing your opponent might wear himdown, but it wears down interest. when is the last tiem you visited an old folks home? I mean once every 4 or 5 years is probabley where most people like to keep it, it is just not a fun or interesting place to go unless you know someone there, other than that you avoid it like the plague. In thsi case unless you are politically inclined you will avoid politics like the plague as well. We are talkign about a group of un interestign boring people. The odd time we get interesting people with more personality than a bucket of hockey pucks we ostracize them. We ask why youth are not involved in politics and why they vote in so few numbers but at every step people laugh at young people and tear them down and we wonder why they don't vote, it aint rocket science it ain't even sociology. It is and should be plain old common sense. Politics as usual is boring, but anything other than politics as usual tends to scare the politically inclined. Then we turn around an threaten to fine those who don;t vote. It is like legislate happiness or as recently done in a brazillian village banning death. It doesn;t really work or fix the problem. In our case legislatign people to vote will not change the fact they are not interested in politics, it doesn't lead to more education, and it doesn't lead to a better political system. People are voting and they are voting with there feet, many say a private corporation couldn't run like a government. But I say a retail store couldn't survive under the conditions of our political culture. We have a monopoly on the market and the item is free...when someone doesn't show up they have already made a very big statement, even a deaf person should be able to hear the message and a blind person see that there is a problem. But now we want to fine people because are politicians are old, boring, pretentious losers? To me it seems unreasonable to ask people to do more than what they have done, it seems unreasonable to me to ask these people to show up and vote to send the message they are already sending, it is about time others picked up on the fact the message has been sent. It isn't about electoral reform or Representation it is about politics as usual...try changing that, not finign people because its politics as usual it seems counter productive and down right un fair.

Yeah were listening, and we are responding with a HELL NO stop the bullshit. Spending the rest of your life in prison until you die also prevents repeat offences and it is cheaper...It also prevents cases where the state murders completely inocent people. When Canada ended the death penalty half a dozen people on death row were found to be innocent. You know not guilty, as in about to be killed for a crime they did not commit, that is not a price we should be asking anyone to pay for an affect that has been declared as non-existent. The Death penalty shows no advantage in specific deterence over life in prison with no chance for parole. The claim of General detterence has also been negated, so in that sense it really isn't a crime fighting machine, so much as a crime commiting machine. It is somewhat Ironic that in one breath Many Conservatives can condemn Canada for being in a group with Cuba and North Korea on the topic of Health Care but than turn around and condemn us for not joining dubya's Axis of Evil. As we have no troops to fight the axis of evil we will stand by bush in spirit and refrain from joining the worlds hitlist of human rights offenders and notorious terrorists.

Posters like yourself?

Nope the 51st state, nobody gave him the memo that he was actually the ambassador not the governor.

I will tip my hat off to Harper on that letter, if only he could get Canadian News papers to print his letters.

I agree, far more comlicated than relationships or the fake ass story you told. I am assuming some of them have kids, anyways so what? I read on MSN that 50 is the new 30 so 40 is the new 20. So by deduction what your sayign is to live a happy fullfilling life you must be married? Infact Actually you said if you were not married there is no one to have sex with. So does that mean that Gays never had sex in Canada until just a little while ago? Beyond that anyone who has some kind of life should have someone to talk to someone and someone to interact with...hell even if you don't have a life sex and conversation still shouldn't be a problem. So perhpas they are mor ecareer orientated? It doe snot mean they are not leading full filling lives. Perhpas saving someones life might make someone genuinely happy. Girls better students who knows. However of course females have amde advancements int he past 40 years, more and more females are having careers with careers comes career advancement. Better students than???? How do you measure or compare individuality? and by your own admission more and more females are becoming independant. Well there is ego, right? Is that physical or more mental? And than there is the odd occasion where you enjoy being with the person. Well than these males need help, mind you I have not yet met one exactly like that. As well its pure competition perhpas the best man or woman shoudl when every now and than not jsut the best man. Says who? Says who? Says who? Have you been to college yet????? Again says who. I am startign to think the problem with American society is unsubstantiated information flowing around the internet and the media as fact, its bullshit. No its called bullshit. Please note that nice guy and dork with no social skills are two different things. Says who? Says who? And you have found conclusive proof of this.....where???? up your ass????? I thought society was stuck in a place where there were no marriges, no sex, and no relationships. Thats nice, it was a pretty shity one if you ask me. Perhaps, next time put your thesis at the begining and try to support it rather than give us that lame ass male version of a Sob story.

Well your right were not Switzerland, or Italy, or even Sweden but what does a coalition government have to do with that? I mean you have claimed on occasion that Canadians will only grow up when we do away with the Queen and call our selves the Federal republic of Canada. Should I inform you that we are not the United States, Russia or Venezuala? Why is it if other countries have something must we suddenly rebuke it? I realize opinions change over time, its happend to me aswell, but you have previously refered to Canada as being an undemocratic one party state, where opposition to the liberals arises from within the liberal party. At this point in time the only federal opposition we can have to the liberals is through a minority government, and that is better than comming from within the party. If we must adapt we must do so under the guidance of more than 38% of the popular vote in this country wether the liberals are propped up by the Conservatives or the NDP, or someone else beign propped up entirely, as long as they must maintain support from an outside party we are infact adapting. We are adapting and changing from what has been thirteen years of a minority controlling a majority. For the first time in almost 20 years we had a parliment that required a true majority to pass legilslation, for the first time in almost 20 years any legislation passed was done so with the authoriation stemming from more than 50% of the popular vote. What it accomplished and what it didn't accomplish have yet to be seen and the full impact to soon to be judged. But when the cards are on the table I am not going to acuse Canada of being a one party undemocratic state and then chastize a multi-party authorization requirement on any legislation to be passed. I would also hope that on January 23rd we will send to Ottawa a governing party that needs authorization from other parties on any potential legislation. I will take this small check on power over an elitist government ruling Canada on the basis of a minority support.

And you know definitavely what party has the majority of Canadians well being as there best interest? Or do you just want the majority of Canadians to vote the way you do? There is a difference, and there may be a difference between what you want and what someone else may want or what you define as what the majority wants and what someone else defines as such. To be honest with you surveys indicate the majority of Canadians want Pot decriminalized, want quebec as a part of this country, want homosexual marrige legislation to be kept, etc... and who says it is up to you to write them off, do you wrtie them off because they are un important or because your party doesn't represent the majority view? While the election topics so far may not be that hair raising that is not to say it wont change and it is not to say you can write them off and delegate them to the back seat all the while claiming you know what canadians want, perhpas Canadians might just vote for what they want. Just because you don;t like their conclusions or how the reach them is no reason to say they need to wake up.

Total: CPC: 102 Liberals: 123 NDP: 23 Bloc: 60

I am never bothered by such petty expesnes unless there is a violation of some principle. The way I see it is it can't cost me more than a couple bucks max, and I loose that in the couch cushins every day.

That has never been prooven as a fact, your assuming it is a fact. And yes you do endorse a 2 hour political campaign ad, its free to do. 16 Van Helsing Uni. $120,177,084 3,580 $51,748,040 3,575 5/7 8/26 17 Fahrenheit 9/11 Lions $119,194,771 2,011 $23,920,637 868 6/23 10/28 Wasn't succesfull the 17th highest grossing domestic film of the year was not a success???? It had a Worldwide grossing of $222,446,320. While costing only 21 million to make, produce, and market. Van helsing on the other hand cost 210 million. Given the cynical view of politics that choice seat was going to go to a dishonest person in the eyes of the public, maybe they coudl have given it to howard dean??? anyways enough with this you have still failed to proove michael moore is their God, all you really have offered is that he got a choice seat...your bassign your whole arguement ont he fact he got a seat...which in the end doesn't conclusively mean anything. As well don't preach to me about the flaws of the democratic party I have never been a stringent supporter of them, Infact in thsi very old thread, http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...7&hl=bush&st=15, I stated that no one shoudl replace bush because he is the best man for the job, so please don't tell me the democrats have flaws I know that.

Well actually the topic was which MP would you most like to see loose their seat, so in technicality we both went off on a tangent. You however made a claim and failed to back it up, so you were off topic in your own post. Of course you don't by ignoring certian important pieces of information your arguement is stregnthend. No its not, sucess is based largely on how many people vote for you, it is completely assinine to call voter intentions utterly irrelavant. Yeah in the 2000 election I think the Alliance had higher membership than the Liberals...this doesn't neccasarily translate into votes or success. Despite there high membership and money the pary was polling between 10-12% in the months leading up to the merge. Which shows the party was struggling to maintain general popularity. Generally speaking the party failed to make a break through in 2000 and were predicted to do much much worse in the next election. To put it bluntly they were bleeding voter support, a party that fails to make inroads one election and then retreats the next election is not going to be in strong shape when the election after that comes by. I disagree, even if they recieved a huge jump over their numbers of 10-12% to maybe 16%, they still most likely would have dropped out of Ontario and continue to draw blanks in Quebec in the maratimes and taken a small hit in the west. It was already seen as an Alberta based party it only would have gotten worse if they dropped further back to the west and alberta. Would the NDP have double their voter support? Well in 2000 they recieved 8% of the vote...the last poll before the merge showed them at 15%...so yes. This is exactly why the merge was neccasary for both Parties, the P.C's needed money and the alliance needed good solid prospects East of Manitoba. By Merging both parties got what they needed, The alliance was given Much better prospects east of manitoba and they had money to capitalize on this. Both Parties needed this merge, both parties had hit a rocky patch of road, and both parties needed help, the thing was both parties had what the other party needed. This isn't a case of the P.C's being saved by the alliance but a case of both parties being better off together. Lets call it like it is Argus both parties needed what the other had it is not just a case of the P.C's needing the Alliance.

Yep. That's why he had a prize seat beside an ex-president of the US at the DNC and that is why much of the Democrat leadership went to the Washington premiere of Fahrenheit 9-11 and gushed to the press about how good it was. [sarcasm]Yep. Moore is actually someone on the fringes of the Democrat Party--unlike Pat Robertson, who is constantly lauded by rightwingers.[/sarcasm] <{POST_SNAPBACK}> come on man it is just getting lame now. I never denied that Moore was popular and all you have shown is that he is popular in the democratic party. You know as well as I do that it takes more than popularity to be the god of anything from the chess club to the democratic party. Logicaly speaking it makes sense that democrats are going to praise farenhiet 9-11 it was a 100 million dollar revenue machine. Generally speaking you pay money to have political advertisments aired not the other way around. Infact the movie itself earned about half of what the democrats spent leading up to the election, and it probabley recieved more air time. You would be stupid not to give it the thumbs up if it benifieted you. Michael moore is an attention grabber so you want to make sure this guy shows up at your political rallies and campaigns because the guy is just as recognizable as John Kerry. Ensuring he comes to your meetings and conventions and gets a good seat, is like free publicity, you would be stupid not to take it. I also never said more was on the fringes of the democratic party, but he is on the fringes as far as policy is concerned, unless I am mistaken. But I don't know any central policy to the democratic party that moore introduced. He is popular within the democratic party and with youth, but he certainly isn't the central figure of the agenda of the democratic party, he is the messenger and a damn good one at that. But a good messenger is not God, maybe he is "John the Baptist" of the democratic party.

You have completely failed to adress my post. If you are going to accuse me of revisionism make damn well sure you point out where it is. Instead it appears as though you nearly went into cardiac arrest when you saw someone make a bad comment about the Alberta Alliance and rushed in to preach the impending doom of the P.C's, a party I never even mentioned in my post. You know what I said, you know it made no mention of the Progressive conservatives and simply changing the topic does not change the truth. The truth is that in every region of the country the Alliance party was polling lower than there share of the popular vote from the previous election. They were even polling much lower than the reform parties share of the vote in 97 and 93. In fact the last poll before the merge took place saw the Alliance party recieving 10% of the popular vote basically half of what the reform party recieved. This is not revisionism this is fact and it is exactly why you completely avoided addressing it in your post, because it doesn't fit with your arguements, shame on you. If the progressive conservatives were walking dead, than with out a doubt the alliance was going to meet its impending doom as a serious national party.

How is marijuana a moral issue? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It isn't, but I'm with Harper on this one, I've seen first hand what pot can lead to. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you seen what a needless criminal record WILL do to a person?

Trusted them so much they wouldn't vote for them. The party was walking dead, on the verge of bankruptcy, without ideas or support. If it hadn't merged with the Alliance when it did it would have been destroyed in the last election. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Destroyed, walking dead??? Are you describing the alliance? You know the party that was unable to poll above 20% in the 2 years leading up to the merger? The party that was only 1 point higher than the bloc? The alliance was the definition of walking dead having their potential share of the popular vote cut in half from the previous election. That is the definitionof walkign dead Harper an dmost of the alliance could see the writing on the wall and were an election away from becoming the bloc alberta.

gilles duceppe

This is not a simple solution it is just an underhanded attempt to introduce a friendly form of the old alliance party policy of a flat tax. If couple A, both work making $10 an hour in a dead end job they bring in a combined $40,000, this new tax sharing doesn't affect them. With couple B one person works this person makes $65,000 by splitting his taxes with his spouse he will pay taxes at the same rate as couple A. This policy also doesn't benifiet the single working mom trying to raise a family and work instead her $40,000 could possibly be taxed at a higher rate than her managers $65,000. We must take note of these inconsistencies before we priase such a policy as while it stands to help some people that deserve help it also stands to put many people at a disadvantage by punishing single working parents and maintaining the status quo for poor couples.

Honestly before the greens will ever grow rapidly, as you put it, I thinky they must first let people know that a vote for them is more than just a vote for the environment. although the greens are not a one issue party to many people see them as a one issue party for them to grow rapidly. When anyone says the green party the first thing that comes to mind is the environment, beyond that very little does come to mind, where as the CPC, NDP, or liberals all bring a number of different things to mind about their policies so IMHO the greens have alot of work ahead of them.

So has society today transfered from Simon says to Science Says???? This isn't a nock against polls, they are great snap shots...sorta like a black and white photo of the coat of many colours. Not saying these polls are not accurate, but even 3.5% makes a huge difference...yes its better than his Italian friend but no reason to harp on a legitimate question of wether or not there is a deep seated resentment towards the Liberal party that will manifest itself at the polling stations...to me it is a good question...it was never a statement. As for the answer there is already deep seated resentment agaisnt the Liberals, the question is wether or not the conservatives can capitalize on it.

Tell your kid to bet on the Russian ... Alla. She's a shoe-in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> nope sorry shes gone, I think I will put my E-money on Rebecca.

So what your saying is Moore doesn't always tell the truth???? No shit eh???? Michael Moore really isn't the God of the democrats, the democrats like him because he draws a crowd, the youth like him because he is funny. He really isn't a central figure in the policy making of the democrats I think more or less he strikes the ire of republicans because he beats Pat Robertson hands down.

Beat me to it - well done... I am sort of curious how many windmills we need to provide Toronto's electrical needs. Seriously - give us an accurate number + the scientific data to justify that number. Then tell us where these 100's of thousands of windmills will be placed. Then tell us the impact these windmills will have on the birds. Thank you in advance for this information... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> clearly we can just place them in alberta with the rest of the windbags.

It is common around election times, hell even I came back...last election we got a huge influx of those annoying pesky trolls.

No one example does not proove the trend but I belive there are a couple examples from recent memory. Strategic 03/11/2005 Libs: 28 Cons: 31 3 days later Strategic 06/11/2005 Libs: 35 Cons: 28 ----------------------- Ipsos-Reid 12/05/2005 Libs: 27 Cons: 31 6 days later Ipsos-Reid 18/05/2005 Libs: 34 Cons: 28 ------------------------ Ipsos-Reid 30/04/2005 Libs: 30 Cons: 33 Ipsos-Reid 07/05/2005 Libs: 32 Cons: 31 ------------------------- Pollara 05/05/2005 Libs: 31 Cons: 36 (next pollara is two months later, but the next two polls following the release of this poll showed the CPC lower than the liberals) I am not trying to say this happens in every case a poll is released, but that it seems to be a trend that the conservatives have trouble hanging on to a lead for more than a few polls, I find only one case where polls continuously have put the CPC in the lead for 10 days in the past 2 years. So my big question is wether or not we will see some steadying out of the polls or will they bounce around?