Moonbox

I was mocking you. There was nothing vague about what you and Argus were saying. You decided that the alternative of running for office or starting our own parties were perfectly practical solutions to our choices of picking the lesser of evils when we vote. Pure analism again. Think like a human being here. He said he votes for the CPC because it's better than the alternatives. Most people would leave it at that and realize he's talking about the parties available at the moment and that running for office is probably not a real option. No. Nice try. Socially I'm very liberal. Fiscally I'm conservative. I'm not happy with the stimulus program right now and I know my taxes will likely rise in the next few years. Like Argus said though, which you managed to muddy up with your delightfully insightful suggestion that he run for office if he wasn't happy, was that there aren't better alternatives right now.

No, that's just you trying to be clever. Context helps the AVERAGE person (not an anal person) understand that when someone like Argus says he chooses the CPC over all the alternatives, he actually means that "Barring the possibilities that I create and nurture my own political party and run for politics, and considering that a vote for a fringe party like the Christian Heritage Party makes about as much a difference as a fart in the wind, the best choice for my vote is the CPC." Really anal people, on the other hand, require the clarification. You said I vote conservative no matter what. Citation please?

That's about what I'm thinking, but I like the way you've explained it. I never really thought that the Liberals could moan and groan for more stimulus and then pretend they had nothing to do with it several years from now. You could be right and it would be pretty funny to see how the blame game pans out.

Look up the definition of context. Context can drastically change the meaning of a statement. If you're not prepared to take context into account when talking then maybe you'd be better conversing with robots. I know what I said. You chose to take what I said as if it were a separate discussion altogether. Yes, TECHNICALLY Argus and I could start our own grass roots party. Yes, TECHNICALLY we could run for office ourselves. Whether we have the means or the inclination is another matter altogether. If we don't, then our alternative is to chose from the parties available. If he and I are voting from the right, we generally have the choice of Liberal or Conservative. Presently the Liberals look worse than the Conservatives. I hope that clears things up. As for who you think you'll vote for, you don't have a clue. I have voted Liberal in the last 5 years and I would do so again if people like Bob Rae weren't in positions of influence. The fact that the coalition even became a possibility tells me the LPC has shifted left/stupid.

Probably. Either that or he agreed with the majority of the budget. The situation was drastically different anyways. The country wasn't in its worst recession in probably 80 years, and we hadn't had 3 elections in the last 5-6 years. Harper's party also wasn't completely broke and they weren't in nearly the same position of weakness. They're both walking a fine line. Harper's majority gamble failed in October and if he triggered another election soon even I wouldn't vote for him. If people like me wouldn't, a good number of others wouldn't either. He knows that. We're in a recession. That's what's important. Harper is not calling an election in spring either. He may force none-confidence on a big issue, but that's a little different than what he did in October.

What you said was all I care about is winning. Take the statement in context. Stop trying to divide and pick apart and confuse every argument. Argus said he is unhappy with a lot of the things the CPC has done but he still thinks they are better than the Liberals. You told him to vote for someone else then. My question was who??? A marginal fringe party with no chance of affecting any change? There's no point in voting for them. The reform party filled in the vacuum in the west created by a collapsed PC party. That's not the environment we're looking at today. No argument there. It's just not an alternative for myself or Argus.

This sort of amendment is more to keep up appearances of resistance than anything. When the first 'report card' is evaluated, we'll be back EXACTLY where we were last week. The CPC will present whatever theyre going to present, and the LPC will either swallow it or force some ACTUAL amendments. The amount of pussy-footing being done here is titanic. If Ignatieff thinks there are big problems with the budget, amend them NOW rather than wait for the actual damage to be done and say, "I told you so!" No Iggy, you didn't. You had the chance to force amendments and you didn't do it. Either you think the budget is fine or you're politicking. It's something Canadians loathe right now. You'll notice the lack of CPC attack adds recently. Harper's reigned it in for a reason. Like I said it's a wishy-washy pussy-foot position. He's taking the easy way here. It's a no risk approach where he can say anything he wants after the fact and it's purely because he's in an extremely weak position. A coalition would ruin the Liberals and they can't afford an election. It's Dion all over again with better English. Harper can and WILL make it clear that Ignatieff could have had the budget amended at every turn.

You have no idea what I believe. For someone who doesn't like to get personal you certainly have no problem telling me what my values are. It has nothing to do with winning. I voted for John Tory in the 2007 Ontario election even though he was CERTAIN to lose and we don't have to go over what his mistakes were. I voted for him because I thought crybaby Dalton was doing a horrific job and he was the best alternative. This is what you seem to have trouble realizing in most discussions. Politics are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS about alternatives. I choose Harper (so far) over Ignatieff because he is the best alternative for ME. ALL of the other options are either: a ) Completely opposed to my philosophy of government (Green and NDP come to mind) or b ) Are such fringe parties that voting for them would be as effective as trying to fart down a brick wall. As a RATIONAL human being, if one of two parties are 99.99999% certain of winning the election, I will chose the one that suits me best. People can vote NDP or Green all they want. If they want to vote with their heart then that's fine, but our parliamentary system could not care less what you feel in the deepest part of your heart. It's very obvious which of the posters here follow that philosophy as well, because their arguments reflect it. Besides, the NDP actually gets elected and makes a difference in a lot of ridings. Even the Green Party has a chance in specific areas.

I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that if the Liberals think the budget is a terrible idea and isn't going to help Canada, they SHOULD push for amendments or they should vote it down. Since they pretty much passed it as is, it's stupid to take the position that they think it's a terrible plan. Right now the official opposition is supporting the budget. That says one of two things. Either they support what the government's doing, or they're a weak opposition. I'll let you decide.

Agreed on everything... There's something I would DIE to see. This is one of my biggest beefs nowadays. Again, I agree on everything. These are all things that can and should happen. The problem is that none of them are going to stimulate the economy right now and none of the current parties are really offering any of that anyways. These are things that nobody is going to worry about for a couple of years right now. You and I are therefore left with just complaining about them. If we want something done we should try and get into politics. Failing that we can continue to both argue for the same measures from opposite teams. Okay I couldn't remember. Now that we know that they were either full of balogna or forced to reverse their position, who do we go to if the current budget doesn't suit us?

Can you rephrase that? I don't understand. I think you need to be a little more specific. In some ways I agree with you, but you're speaking mostly cliché and I don't really know exactly what you're talking about. If you're saying that insatiable corporate greed, corruption and the inept regulation of the financial markets, then I think you're on the right track. Above it all, however, you have to hold the stupidity of the average consumer.

Surely you can't be saying that it's not the job of MP's to help decide how to govern the country??? You couldn't possibly mean that MP's in the opposition should keep their mouths shut if the current government is doing harm to the country, could you? While I agree that Opposition isn't normally prepared to disclose their election platform to the current government, when the country is facing its worst recession in probably 80 years, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the opposition shouldn't be trying to mitigate it as much as possible.

For pete's sake there is a very small list of alternatives, but you alreadly know that. It's almost always a question of which party will be better for you, as an individual or family. There's no point in voting for a party that has no chance of winning, which is often why the Liberals have such strong support from the left. Why would you say something silly like that knowing full well that it's impossibly unlikely another right-wing grass roots party will spring up in Alberta? You make it sound like you've never voted for someone you weren't 100% happy with...

What sort of meaningful things can the government do without the budget right now? I'm not sure that's what he said. As I recall he said they were going to wait to present the budget before they did anything.

I'll agree with that. I don't think anyone, even CPC supporters, have the same image of Harper as we did in 2004-2006. Having said that, in some ways he is still very different from Liberal idealogy and even you should be able to admit to the (increasingly more subtle these days) differences between the two. I think it is good strategy to spend where you think you'll win votes. The tories could spend billions in downtown Toronto and they'd still probably come up with nothing. Spending in Newfoundland would similarly flop. Quebec is probably a lost cause at this point too. I think fairness gets disregarded in favor of pragmatism when it comes to politics. I didn't read any of the numbers but I'd bet a disproportionate amount of stimulus is being spent in Ontario and other small C areas for the very reason that they'll pick up votes from red/blue swingers.

This was from the Globe and Mail, I read it on the Saturday hard copy: "It has been precisely 11 days since Finance Minister Jim Flaherty unleashed his whopper of a budget, weighing in at 343 pages, for an average of $117-million in stimulus spending per page. Mr. Ignatieff this week declared the plan was not working. He's right, clever fellow. It's not working. But then, it's not law yet, either, since it's still in the early stages of working its way through the House. The billions of dollars set aside for infrastructure have not been paid out, Mr. Ignatieff pointed out, quite accurately presumably because one still needs the approval of Parliament before one pays out the billions of dollars one has set aside for infrastructure." (I don't have a link sorry that's directly taken from the Saturday paper Globe and Mail) I thought this was just kind of funny. Iggy's already said the budget isn't working before it's even been enacted. With that said, What do people think of massive stimulus? Personally, I already think it's enough, perhaps too much, but there doesn't seem to be ANYONE out there forwarding that as an option. Harper says there will be no more stimulus after this, but then Flaherty contradicts him and says there could be. Iggy and the Liberals are clamoring for more and good 'ol Jack is saying that CPC policies are directly responsible for 325,000 lost jobs. I remember jdobbin and I arguing about how big the deficits would be over the next few years prior to the election and it seems both he and I were like 20-30 billion dollars off our estimates. What my question to everyone here is what on EARTH are people looking for in the budget? People right now are criticizing the CPC budget from one direction, saying that they're overspending and the massive deficits are going to be completely their fault, but then from the other direction they're supporting various parties that demanded it in the first place and in many cases are demanding even more spending. Disregard the fact that Harper increased the federal budget slightly and overspent on social programs over the last two years. How much did that REALLY affect us considering the deficits for the next 2 years will be in the area of $60 billion? The effects were marginal. Clearly Harper is a flip-flopping hypocrite and said what he needed to get elected in October, but if we're going to attack his policies, could someone PLEASE clarify how the alternatives are better? Is more spending and bigger deficits better, or is it just CPC deficits that are evil?

One thing I wanted to mention about Iggy's poll numbers and PT's comments is that the CPC has been VERY careful in the last month or so not to appear like they're campaigning again. There was an article in the Globe and Mail on Saturday where a Harper insider indicated that they want to appear focused solely on the economy. Harper does NOT want to appear to be the man who triggers the next election. His entire credence statement is based on his economic background and a perception that he's going to be the guy to fix the economy (whether or not you believe it is irrelevant fyi, that's just what he's trying to project). Negative attack adds are going to make people think he's more concerned with curb stomping the Liberals while they're down and Canadians with few exceptions aren't going to appreciate it.

Yeah 15% mortgages was a nightmare for a lot of people. While the mortgage rates people are paying now should be MAXIMUM 6% at the worst, people at large are almost just as worse off now as they were in the 80's and 90's. Why? Well first off the average household income has not kept pace with inflation since back then and now people are carrying more unsecured debt. I work in the business and believe me it is NOT AT ALL uncommon to meet people with $20-80,000 of credit card balances at 18+% interest. It's crazy. Over consumption!

More often than not I'd say yeah... From time to time I think decisions are made based more on the strict rule of law rather than what's 'right' but that's another matter altogether.

I didn't assume anything. I said it appeared to be a passing remark, meaning it wasn't something that was thoroughly researched and cross-referenced. It's not rude to ask for a citation, but it's anal and inconsiderate to ask for one when you have a good idea what the person's saying is wrong already, which is what you indicated. You're absolutely correct. If someone is spewing numbers all over the place then it's probably a good idea to ask. On the other hand, some things are difficult if not impossible to cite. Capricorn's statement, for example, is not going to be citeable. Why? Because unless it's been thoroughly researched since the founding of the Confederation all the way to today vote by vote, nobody is going to make that claim. It's easier to bring up a previous instance in which this has occured than it is to rule out it ever happened in the last 100 years. Besides, the at the end of Capricorn's post might have also helped clarify that is wasn't exactly a shining example of academia. Sometimes it's simply NOT WORTH THE EFFORT to accurately cite something. The purpose of this forum, when it comes down to it, is to discuss politics reasonably. We're not writing academic essays and few of us have the time to reference everything we say. It bogs the discussion down into nothing when a citation is required for even the smallest comments. Let the little things slide. Ask for citations on the more contentious issues and give us the courtesy of just correcting us with a few words, or even provoke a debate by saying something along the lines of, "LoL, that's not right and here's why: ." Maybe rude wasn't the right word. Anal was. I'm not trying to attack you or your intelligence. I'm attacking how you nitpick and you try to muddy things up with technicalities. This is kind of what I'm talking about. I think the rules probably allow for context and intent when deciding whether something is presented as hard fact or just simple feeling, thought or rhetoric. You'd do well to notice the difference. My politics are highly pragmatic, which how they should be for everyone. I have regularly acknowledged Harper's shortcomings. I believe some of the descriptions I've used for him have been, "Snake, Hypocrite, Lesser of Evils, Bible-Thumper," just to name a few. When I defend him, I do so by comparison to the alternatives. It was easier when Dion was leader. I'm finding it a lot more difficult now that he and Bob Rae are out of the picture. I'd be happy if we had a socially moderate leader with a fiscally conservative agenda. That's certainly not Harper. Maybe that's Ignatieff? I really don't know enough about him yet to say. As far as your postings are concerned, I really don't see much balance to the perspective. It appears your posts are more of an extension to Liberal friendly media than anything else. Anyways, you and I have definetly killed the thread by now. I've made it pretty clear what I think of a lot of your posting lately so i'll leave it at that.

I don't accept claims from anonymous posters. In fact, I ask for citations sometimes myself. Where most people differ from you is that we don't ask for citations for things we're already fairly certain aren't true. The INTELLIGENT thing to do in this instance would be to call BS and recall an instance which would refute the claim. What do you think is easier? Bringing up an event from memory and providing citation for it, or asking capricorn to look for a citation you and I both know he'll have a heck of a hard time finding and that he probably wasn't 100% serious about in the first place? There we go, now we're talking. Now we know you've observed it happening before. You know what? I'll also take that statement at face value. I find it extremely unlikely that over the last 100 years or so there hasn't been at least a few unpunished protests at the whipped vote. This is discussion. Try this more. This is what the boards are about. Citation is only worth the argument you present with it. Do you see what I'm getting at? When you do nothing but quote someone and say, "Citation please" it's just as rude as me coming right out and saying you're full of BS. The difference between us is that I have the courtesy to explain my position. I'll make the effort to stop attacking your posts when you make the effort to actually think out and write down your arguments rather than playing the dual role of citation police and partisan news broadcaster. Don't ask for citations unless you're going to provide an alternative viewpoint or clarify what the point of contention is. If all you're going to do is spam news links that promote your partisan interests then I'm going to call you on it. We are all very capable of visiting the Toronto Star, CBC, Calgary Herald etc. We don't take their political news terribly seriously either because they have VERY filtered viewpoints. I'm very anti-Liberals these days, you've probably noticed. I'm smart enough, however, not to quote Alberta newspapers when I'm criticizing them because you'd be right not to take what they say seriously. There's very little personalization in my language. My observation was you ARE unreasonably anal when it comes to citation and that spamming news links with clichéd and partisan one-liner commentary is pointless and foolish. Besides, this thread has already been derailed. It's your responsibility to use your brain. Stop acting like a victim because you bring it on yourself. "Oh gee umm...I'm pretty sure he's ummm...totally wrong...so umm...I should probably ask him for citation rather than...um....mustering the gargantuan effort to lift my fingers on to the keyboard and....ummm...explain why I think he's wrong."

Pure foolishness. If you knew ANYTHING about American politics, you would know that Obama and the democrats in general in the USA would be considered EXTREME right-wingers in Canada.

What about George Strombalopaboring's show on CBC that nobody watches? I think he's supposed to be funny, but I can never tell because I couldn't stand him on Much Music growing up either.

Because a few days ago I was rather interested in a discussion I was having with madmax and I wanted to see where it went from there. Instead I find that you've derailed the thread and baited some posters into one of your anal citation arguments. Typical jdobbin. See: Don't be stupid. You asked for a citation on a passing and cynical remark made by capricorn. Either you were disputing it to be true or you're just asking for citation to annoy and inconvenience people. capricorn, as far as I could tell, was saying a partially whipped vote excluding a whole province of MP's is unusual and as far as he knew unprecedented. It's YOUR responsibility to disprove that on your own. You're showing either an inability or unwillingness to perform even simple critical thinking if you can't see why. Over the last few months I've come to expect that from you.

Wow I'm amazed at how this thread derailed into a stupid and completely unrelated argument