j44

.

Thanks, I forgot all about it. 1. Ashton never says anything of value. It always seems so generic. I watched an interview with her last week and she was awful. I dont even think she had an idea what corporate taxes were. 2. I hate when they put people on stage behind the candidates.

Juche?

I think the 80% unemployment should read 80% employment.

Is there even anyone who enforces the rules? Ps. Hi I'm j44.

More accurately known as the disagree w Macker vote.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/07/guest_post_joseph_kony_is_not_in_uganda_and_other_complicated_things

If you say so.

Yeah, I read it.

Nowhere in that article did he say that.

I thought some people might find this interesting. http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/72109-singh-doing-mulcair-s-dirty-work Even before reading this I would have thought Singh's views lined up with Mulcair's more than anyone else. Can't say I noticed this but I didnt watch the last two debates.

That's how I decide. That and whatever party color i like the best.

In his favor? Edit. Nevermind. I see what you're saying.

Danielle Smith is better looking than Redford. lol

I talked to a friend of mine this evening who said he filled out his ballot today. I knew he ended up picking Cullen as #1 because weeks and weeks ago when I said I liked Cullen he said he liked Dewar (which didnt surprise me because he is left of me). Anyway, I found it a little odd that he went to Cullen so easily but that is not the purpose of this post. I had a conversation with him tonight and I want to know if anyone else finds his reasoning for making his decisions on #2 and 3 a little different. It's obviously up to him but I can't say I agree with his thinking behind his choices. Here is what he said (and these are pretty much direct quotes) After telling me he put Dewar as #2 and Topp as #3 I said I thought that Mulcair and Cullen were the only standouts I saw. He then said that he didn't put Mulcair on the top slot because he doesn't need my help and he shows it by not calling me. I get phone calls from Dewar and Topp nightly it seems and emails from all the others. He then said that he agreed with me about Nash not doing great and then said he got a call from Topp's campaign last night and the guy on the phone was really hard to argue with. He made some good points about Topp and earned him 3rd place on my ballot. I don't know if he'd even gotten a number from me without that phone call. I find him not putting Mulcair on his ballot because he didnt contact him and apparently doesnt need his vote very, very odd. Am I alone here?

...yeah, she's cute eh?

Crap. You should have let this go. It would have entertained the hell out of me if you did.

This just proves my above point about respect. And he managed to interpret what I said as meaning that he (and no one else here) supports women, minority and gay rights.

It has nothing to do with Nash, the NDP or any other issue. It is a matter of respecting other people and their opinions and having reasonable debate with no name calling.

I’d bet you are the only one that thinks cybercoma is ‘belittling’ anyone or anything. Read his comments again: “You suggest that I'm ignoring the plight of women and minority races. This is something you read into my post, rather than anything that I actually said that's racist. Meanwhile, I've been one of the most vocal supporters of "women's" issues (which really should just be called issues, as they affect all of us) on this forum. Namely, I'm the one that started a thread dedicated to such things in the Moral/Ethics forum.” Do you deny that his posts support his comments? Can you prove that his past posts don’t support women’s issues? If so find them and post them. You didn’t even acknowledge his comments. You cherry pick. You never have anything to back up what you say. You read someone’s comments, interpret them incorrectly and then proceed to repeat your interpretation over and over again. I still haven’t heard you say anything to even back your Nash support up other than that she is a women and a good negotiator. Saying that she is the best doesn’t make her so. Why is she the best? Which of her policies do you agree with? There are many NDP supporters on here and I don't think one thinks you are right with Nash but you continue on and on. You even attack NDP supporters when they disagree with you. You attacked me for being a conservative just because I said Nash wouldn't make the best leader and didnt do well in the debates and then when I and several other people pointed out that there was no proof to back up your claim (I’ve never voted C by the way) or that you were confusing me with another poster you not only did not apologize but you made it a point to say that I didn’t deserve one. I could be wrong but I don’t think I’ve ever seen one person come to your aid in an argument yet you continue on and on, never come up with a sound argument and then condescendingly call people ‘buddy’ and say people are racist with absolutely no proof.

Buddy, it wasn't even remotely racist. Ok, Buddy? Thanks buddy.

Why? the sub-heading is International Politics. This is not related at all. Not even a little bit.

What does this have to do with US-Canada relations??

Wait, Obama is black? This is the first I'm hearing of this.

I agree that anything can happen...especially in these types of races but I was surprised there is a Singh vote but none for Dewar. Not to write him off but I thought maybe that he had a relative here since I'm pretty sure Nash does. She has a lot of support from a poster although I've yet to hear legitimate reasons. Do you have an article to back up the BC thing? I'm not totally disputing it but I would think Cullen got a lot of those new members.