Bryan

People love to call Harper names, but ask for evidence of him being a despot, and all they ever have is crazy conspiracy theories. Remember, It was Chretien who inspired the book "The Friendly Dictatorship", and it's author (Jeffrey Simpson) is a lefty. At the time most centre-right voters felt exactly the same way about the Liberals as the left-leaners feel right now about Harper. You don't like the guy who won, your mind won't let accept that his win could have happened, so you start to invent scenarios by which is must have been a fraud.

The guy who made the video is an idiot. You can't move any votes, every one counts. You never know how things will bear out on election day, sometimes very secure seats end up changing hands. No party would ever risk 'moving' voters to another riding. You want every vote in every riding. That doesn't mean things are all above board though, far from it. The cheating that goes on is much more over than that: people voting multiple times, directing vulnerable people as to how to vote, ballot box stuffing, rigging the counts, etc all happen. Security and verification of voting in Canada is a joke, and has been for generations. Wide spread irregularities are reported at almost every election for as long as I can remember. The only thing we can really do is volunteer to be a scrutineer for the whatever party you support. That's what I do. I stay at the polling station observing the voting process, and especially observing any irregular behaviour by Elections Canada officials or any shenanigans by the opposition. In our riding, there were lots of unsubstantiated allegations for years against the incumbant MP. As soon as we started putting scrutineers at every poll, our candidate starting winning by pretty wide margins. That doesn't mean he was cheating, but it certainly reinforced our determination to keep a vigilant watch.

Are you on drugs?

Let the retractions begin: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Retraction+apology/6244843/story.html

I do think that since EKOS is the most recent poll to the Robo call hysteria, people are interested in it, but you make a very good point: EKOS' track record is pretty bad.

Ask Byron Sonne how that's working for him.

Really? You honestly think after the witch hunt that EC did on them the last time (and the BS of alerting the media and the opposition to come down and witness the raid), that the CPC is going to give any inside info to EC or the opposition? The opposition wants to get ahold of CPC campaign strategy so they can learn how to run their own. It's not happening, not even with a warrant.

What exactly does "more power" mean? What do they want EC to do beside evaluate the evidence that the opposition claims they have? As I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, neither the opposition nor Elections Canada are going to get a look at anything that could give them an understanding of the inner workings of the Conservative election campaigns.

Another thing that occurred to me is the opposition might be doing this, not because they think the CPC is going to take long term heat for it, but to compel them to release information about the inner workings of their campaigns. If it gets released, they'd finally have some insight as to how the CPC has been able to eat their lunch for 5 consecutive elections. They also know that the CPC is not going to release that info willingly, even if they are completely clean. Too much strategic info that there's no chance in hell they'll let anyone from the NDP or LPC see. Then, the opposition can just scream "cover-up" instead.

Try reading the thread, asked and answered.

No he didn't, stop lying.

I already did, try to keep up.

Awesome, more lying again.

No, I don't like everything. Not even close.

This is a good one for the public to latch onto. It has the added bonus of actually being true. Will any party hitch their wagon to abolishing it though? No matter which one did, the others would cry foul. If the Conservatives were to try to pass a law limiting it, you KNOW the lefties would torque it into them trying to get one over on the lowly opposition, or that they're trying to dictate the rules to EC, etc. Even if they did exactly what YOU wanted, it would still get presented as "hidden agenda".

It's true. When I scrutineered in the last few elections, I was more than a little uncomfortable with the level of information we had given to us by Elections Canada as well. I absolutely don't think EC should be handing that info out without people's consent. It's just one of the reasons I do not fill out the census.

Thank you for once again proving my point by example.

Look at the hue and cry we are getting over just marginal increases in sentences, and for mandatory minimums for very serious crimes. We already have activist judges over ruling the LAW. I don't see this as an either or thing anyway. We need much stricter sentencing (far stricter than what's in the omnibus crime bill), and we need to put people like Bernardo and Olsen to death. I don't think anyone would support its widespread use for all cases, but does anyone really object to that?

Almost everything he's linking to is a result of our closely knit economies. US products, or companies that deal heavily with them. Fully changing over 100% is almost impossible as long as the US refuses to catch up with the rest of the world. It's not our fault some people are confused by counting to ten. Personally, I think we should have made a full switch, even in industry. Using some of one system, and some of another just confuses even more people. And it seems to spark OCD episodes in certain posters.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. Not only was his ruling factually incorrect, so was his supposition that he even had authority to make it. Consistent yes, fair, no. Overall, they are a pile of left-wing propaganda that blatantly disregards the fact of the cases. At bare minimum, we need to be able to fire them when they make political decisions rather than factual ones, when they try to make new law by applying a new meaning to existing ones, when they disregard clear and basic rules set forth before them, just because they don't like them.

Partisanship I also expect, it's the hyperbole that gets me. The cries that "this is Nixonian", or that "it's an affront to democracy", when it's business as usual, and not a damn thing to see here are what make me wonder if some of the left-leaning posters even believe what they are writing. Makes debating them in a respectful manner pretty tough when they don't even respect basic things like reality. The dishonest attacks started long before the CPC took power though. We heard nothing but "hidden agenda" and "Canadian Republicans" right from the start of the Reform Movement. Every damn word of it was bullshit, but that didn't stop the partisans and the media from constantly repeating it. I'll absolutely admit to attacking the Liberals when they were in power, but not once did I just make something up and run with it-- something the lefties do almost every single day. I'm nowhere near being a die-hard CPCer. I still consider myself to be a Reformer who has parked his support with the CPC for the lack of better choices. I'm more than willing to admit things they do that I don't like. Blogging Tories is just as frustrating. They are not conservative, so much as they are just CPC. Anyone with an opinion that is contrary to the govt position on the grounds that it's not a conservative policy is shouted down just as much as if he were an NDPer.

People said that about the last several Liberal leaders too. Remember the hype around Ignatieff? Remember how Conservatives (including me) said he'd be easier to beat than Dion? Mulcair will be easier to beat than Ignatieff. Mulcair is only a threat to the NDP. NDP will lose at least half their current seats with him.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-broke-law-on-wheat-board-court-rules/article2263351/ Again, that decision doesn't seem to be what you think it is.

I've said it before, Mulcair is the guy that the Conservatives want to win. He's got a temper, and he's easy to bait into saying things that even he doesn't believe. What I find curious, is the opposition's penchant for wanting the guy they know that the CPC wants to face, and their tendency to laugh when it's pointed out. The NDP should learn a lesson from the LPC and their leaders from the last 7 yrs; The CPC knows who they want to face and exactly how they will beat him/her. Cullen is the only guy I see who might actually be seen as a threat by the Conservatives. He could actually make gains west of Quebec. That many NDPers are writing him off is giving most CPC people a bit of relief. He's really the only one that CPC doesn't look at and say "Yes, Please!".

I'm in full agreement with you there. Nothing of substance is going to come of this. I was just pointing out the clear double-standard whereby something is only bad if a Conservative is accused of it, amplified by the outright dismissal when that double-standard is pointed-out.