marksman

Are you saying you think Harper will go for another election in 6 months?

If this is the game then you're not good at it. I've already said I think Harper should stay but that he only gets 1 more shot at a majority before the party starts to put pressure on him to leave. I'm curious to know how that makes me a partisan liberal. Don't bother answering. I'm not expecting a useful answer. It's easier for you to namecall and hijack then engage in an actual discussion. The fact that you're proud of that says a lot about you.

It's not that Canadians who vote aren't drawn to inspiration. It's that there's nothing to be inspired by. People try to pay attention but what do they get when they do? They get to hear grown men and women bickering like schoolchildren. There was a political cartoon that summed up Canadian politics perfectly. It's from Oct 4 click on the 3 http://www.cbc.ca/photogallery/diversions/1661/7/ We can vote because of a party a leader or local candidate but that doesn't mean any of them are worth voting for. I heard a lot of people talk about how they didn't want to vote for Dion but they really didn't want to vote for Harper. And the other way around as well. They're not voting for someone they've voting against someone worse.

In order to work a joke should be funny. I'd say nice try but it wasn't. At least I can agree that your posts are really sad. And btw isn't a word. Didn't we talk about proofreading before criticizing other's use of language?

You must be a Liberal supporter trolling the internet. Noone could give worse advice to the Conservatives.

Don't believe it for a second. If you were taking the high road and respecting our democracy you would've used the title that Dion earned the right to use for life as well as Harper's title. You would've used the title that Chretien earned the right to use for life when you wrote about him. You didn't. Taking the high road means treating people equally even if you don't support their political views.

If in April the entire party was trying to kill the Green Shift then I'll agree with you. But 1 memo doesn't mean the entire party was against it. I'm sure that in April there were senior advisors that were supporting it at least to Dion's face. And you can't blame him for advice he didn't get because it was given behind his back. Even during the beginning of the election I'm sure people behind the scenes were supporting it. At least some people anyway. In public you're right everyone had to support it. But I'd say that as soon as it was announced the Liberals were locked in until the end of the next election. Even if they'd changed that core part of their platform before the election it would've opened them up to attack for not having a plan or changing their minds based on polls or indecisiveness or whatever. And the Conservatives were already using those attacks. Dumping the Green Shift may've made them more effective putting Harper closer to his majority. I think once the Green Shift was announced they were locked in for better or worse. We'll have to wait for the tellall book I suppose. But I'm guessing it will be the history I mentioned before with Dion taking the fall all alone. No matter what actually happened.

No don't get me wrong! My sarcasm was much easier to interpret as some of the idiotic personal attacks that get put up here by some people. Yours was much easier to identify as sarcasm. Although I'll admit that for a brief second I thought you were serious. I decided that it was more likely you were mocking the idea of that corridor. Also the post right after yours was the perfect response.

You're asking who wants to kick "insert group name here" out of Canada. That sounds like bigotry. Congratulations on having French friends. But you're asking about kicking Quebecers out of Canada not French people. Even if all of your French friends were Quebecers that still doesn't change how your question sounds.

Sarcasm generally goes undetected around here. In fact I think you called me "1 of those" when I used it earlier. People on here like to assume the worst I guess. For the record I'm teasing you a bit there not trying to insult or attack you.

Or he placed what he thought the country needed ahead of what's good for the party. Some might call that principled. Isn't spinning fun? Knowing when to back down and follow good advice is important. But let's be honest I really doubt Dion was the only 1 in the room pushing the Green Shift even midway through the election. The question is what was all of the advice he got and when did he get it. Halfway through an election campaign is no time to change your core platform no matter how bad it's selling. To change it would be more disastrous than keeping it. You won't gain any votes when people see you abandoning your core platform all you'll do is lose votes from those who agreed. You've got to accept the writing on the wall and try to push through. History will record Dion as a total disaster. An arrogant person pushing his personal goals rather than what's best for the party or the country. And that's the way the Liberals have to do it. Dion is now the sacrificial lamb that'll be roasted so that the Liberals can reform and become relevant again. But I doubt that's how it actually happened.

Notice that says nothing about a sense of entitlement. It also doesn't say that liberals "feel and consider" themselves the natural governing party. The Liberal party is sometimes called that and it's not just Liberals who've used the title. Just because a political scientist or the media uses the phrase doesn't mean liberals are arrogant. Even if it was the Liberal party slogan it's more a campaign tool or branding tool than anything else. There are arrogant people in all parties. But this isn't how you identify them.

I always laugh at these righteous sounding posts. Personal attacks have no place in political discussion and yet you personally attack people like Dion. Apparently you've also mistaken sarcasm for some type of overemotional reaction. Next time I'll write the word sarcasm into the post for you. I guess on these forums you've got to be explicit since people seem to automatically assume the worst. So let me make my point in a different way. Next time you're attacking someone's english proofread your post. Unlike your post that's not a personal attack. I'm pointing out your double standard. It's no wonder it's hard to get good discussion around here. Someone implies that all liberals are arrogant and think their party is the natural ruling party just because it was "touted". I point out that by that logic Harper wants to put soldiers on our street corners. Somehow that makes me Dion's best friend. Somehow that translates into me voting Liberal and being a sore loser. Maybe I should've used an ON example instead and said that by this logic McGuinty is an alien kitten eater. Would that make me an ON hating westerner? I've said Canadians rejected Dion's Green Shift so I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue that Canadians chose Harper in the election. Seems kind of obvious. But if you want to talk about Harper's postelection economic plan compared to Dion's only the most blindly partisan party supporters will claim that a plan to hold meetings and call Parliament into session is radically different than a plan to hold meetings. Harper's 6 point plan is more like a todo list out of his daily calendar than an economic plan. Just like Dion's plan for the economic crisis was. 1 reason people are tired of Canadian politics is this very situation. 2 people both wearing grey shirts point at each other and accuse the other 1 of wearing black while claiming that they're clothed in white. All liberals are criminals. All conservatives are the Canadian version of the KKK. It's all bs. It may surprise you but not everyone on here is either a diehard liberal or a diehard conservative. By the way when using RH Stephen Harper you should also use H Stephane Dion. It's only courteous.

My guess is that those who ignore the law would lie and say they had a good reason not to vote. I don't want to even think about the bureaucracy involved in sorting out who had legitimate reasons and who didn't. Anyone know how much it costs to enforce this in Australia?

I don't think low voter turnout has much to do with a lack of personal responsibility or civic values. I think it's more related to the fact that we don't have anyone in Canada worth voting for. We get to vote for the person we dislike the least. For voter turnout it doesn't matter which system we have if the people running are the same uninspiring group. I'd guess mandatory voting would result in people ignoring the law or spoiling their ballots.

Don't confuse a carbon tax with the Green Shift. The Green Shift was a possible implementation of a carbon tax where the revenues from the tax were used to fund tax breaks for lower income Canadians. That doesn't mean that carbon tax revenues must be used for this purpose.

No actually. You said the Liberal party is stuck in the 70s with anti western policies and I asked for examples. A party can't be stuck in the past with a policy if they no longer have that policy. Historical examples don't show where the Liberal party is they only show where the Liberal party was. A carbon tax reflects the true cost of oil. You can be bitter about it but I don't see why anyone should reap the benefits of something without paying the costs no matter where you are in the country. That's not anti western. It's a difference in political opinion. That's also not anti western. If western Canada is so hung up on Justin Trudeau being in the Liberal party then it's pointless for Liberals to even try and appease the west because it won't matter what policies they've got. I do think the Liberals need to reexamine their policies. But if people are going to ignore those policies because of 1 member then why should the Liberals go to the effort? Maybe part of the reason that some Liberals don't worry about the west is because they keep hearing people say that they'll never vote Liberal no matter what. You hear people from the other end of the spectrum using the same reason to refuse to vote for the Conservatives because of Harper. I think it's a dumb way to vote. Look at the policies and decide on the issues. Not because of something in the past that doesn't matter or because you don't like someone's last name.

So you're dismissing me because I've pointed out the ridiculousness of attacking someone's english with a sentence that isn't proper english? I've got no time for people who make posts like that attacking someone's fluency and I've got no problem with turning their own idiocy against them. But consider me "one of those" if you want. Whatever that means. I guess it's easier to do that then engage in discussion.

You're confusing having an election platform with telling people what they think. The arrogance I was refering to was betsy implying that all liberals think they're entitled to form the government. It's arrogant to dismiss a political party and its supporters that way. This isn't the same as trying to sell a new policy that's never been tried before. Whether you liked the Green Shift or not you can at least respect the fact that it was something Dion believed in and tried to get support for. It didn't work but that's why elections have winners and losers. I don't disagree. But it's amazing how that was criticized as undemocratic by so many conservatives. All of that's just a longwinded way of saying what I already said. You'll find arrogance in all the parties. I doubt the advisors were as 1 sided as is now being reported. I'm sure near the end of the election many were saying drop the Green Shift but to do so would've been even worse than sticking with it. It would've showed that Dion had no platform and that he was admitting defeat on his key issue. A bad platform is better than no platform when you've only got a little time left in a campaign. I also can't support clamping down on "overzealous MPs" or ignoring reporters. In a democracy that's just something you've got to deal with. Especially if you're trying to claim that you're accountable like Harper did. And he was particularly bad at this when he first became PM. It may've helped his party but I don't subscribe to theory that the ends justify the means.

How exactly am I a sore loser? By pointing out that someone's grasping at straws with their arguments? He had a policy but Canadians didn't like it. Personally I think we can do better than the proposed Green Shift. Try not to confuse a rejected plan with no plan. You're right Harper's plan is so much better. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/10/15/harper-economy.html Hold a meeting. Take "appropriate action". Summon Parliament or in other words do his job. Go to a meeting. Attend a meeting. Continue a review. The last 1 is the only thing that approaches an actual plan. Neither Harper or Dion inspired much confidence in me with their "plans". And how long have you been working to use basic English? I hope it's less than 2 years otherwise that's pathetic.

I already did. Odd that you ignored it if you wanted a response. Maybe the reason people argue your facts are because you've got them wrong. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=352221

If that's what you wanted then why not just ask who hates Quebec? But that sounds like bigotry so let's pretend we're talking about a trial separation.

The NEP ended over 2 decades ago. Welcome to 2008 where it's not a Liberal policy. Maybe next we should all blame the Conservative party for introducing conscription in world war 1. Extremely soft on crime is a nice talking point but also happens to be a meaningless phrase. Some specifics would be great. Of course this isn't an anti western policy no matter how you try to spin it. Unless you're saying that everywhere but western Canada is full of criminals and the liberals are pandering to them. High taxation is it? Like when Harper campaigned on higher income taxes than Martin? There are legitimate differences of opinion on taxation between cons and libs. Many libs agreed with the overwhelming majority of economists that said cutting income taxes would be better for Canada than cutting the gst. This also isn't an anti western policy. Unless you're trying to say that the libs are proposing higher taxes only for the west. Increasing social programs is again not an anti western policy. Unless they're only giving social programs to people not from the west. A difference in political philosophy isn't an example of regional bigotry. This point also ignores the spending done by Harper over the last 2 years. The carbon tax is the closest you've come and even that isn't anti western. Wanting an environmental plan that takes into account the actual costs of something isn't regionalism. Do you consider pollution laws that limit manufacturing waste anti Ontario because Ontario has a large manufacturing industry? Oil has benefits for the economy and costs to society. So far we're only enjoying the benefits without paying the costs. Saying that you should get the good with the bad isn't anti western. I'll stop there since your last 2 examples are also vague. But you really need to realize that differences in political philosophy don't mean that someone is out to get you. It's really selfimportant and paranoid to think that different theories on taxation mean that someone is out to screw you.

Maybe your tinfoil hat was getting in the way of seeing the obvious. Your argument would certainly be more convincing if you actually referenced the reports and the parts that "endorsed" the Conservative government. I remember reading about favorable IMF projections and our stable banks before the election and a 2 second google search confirmed it. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/10/08/imf.html from Oct 8. http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/513968 from Oct 8 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...nks-rating.html from Oct 9. I've also seen part of the IMF report but it didn't say anything about the Conservative government only that Canadian banks were stable. Of course that didn't stop Harper from taking credit. He was a bit unclear on what his plan actually was. Note that the media did report this on Oct 8 http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/514102 The only thing odd is the continuing attempts to find extreme media bias by some partisans out there.

Another blame the evil media statement. When they first came to power Harper's definition of unfairly ambushed was that the media asked him questions he didn't want to answer. Sorry but in a democracy that's not an excuse to throw a little tantrum and stop dealing with the media. He's now better in dealing with the media but at no point was the media unfairly ambushing him.