kimmy

Yeah, I completely agree. Ignore us at your peril. -k

Hey, that's cool! I wasn't familiar with them. Great guitar sound. If I'm not mistaken, Argus the MLW member used to use that album cover as his profile picture, but I didn't recognize it until now. -k

Those are key points... the amount of catastrophizing being done, on all sides, is out of control. When the Martin regime was in its final days and the Conservatives were on the rise, the Liberal and NDP supporters were predicting all manner of terrible things if Harper became Prime Minister. The reality is, 10 years later, none of the horrible things they predicted came to pass. Overall, Steven Harper didn't turn out to be such a bad guy after all. And we see the same today. The shoe is now on the other foot, as Conservative supporters catastrophize on how Trudeau or Mulcair would destroy the country as we know it. You know what? The country is going to be fine, regardless who wins. It's not like we're choosing between Aragorn vs Sauron. We're choosing between slightly different roadmaps to get to a destination that's pretty similar. -k

When I've discussed politics with co-workers it tends to be done in a rather guarded manner. People tend to chime in with their thoughts on some issue -- the controversy over niqabs, say-- and move along after a bit of friendly banter. -k

I thought Ottawa was quite lovely. If it wasn't for the climate, it would have been my favorite place, I think, due to the combination of natural and man-made beauty in the area. The summer humidity is just gross. And in winter the precipitation is often wet, and the temperature continuously oscillates above and below zero, so that all the snow turns to ice and the city becomes a big skating rink, and it becomes necessary to cover everything with salt, so that everything becomes a big mess of salty slush. I also lived in Vancouver for a while, and hated it. There are some lovely things to see, but the climate and traffic are huge turn-offs. We were there during the winter months, and I think I could count on my fingers the number of times we had sunshine. It was always overcast and usually drizzling. I hated it. And the traffic, ugh, just insane. I assume that the people who create these "quality of life" studies that Vancouver always wins are people who haven't had to get to work there. This probably sounds like a huge homer statement, but I preferred the climate in Edmonton to both Ottawa and Vancouver, despite the amount of ribbing and bad press Edmonton gets. Edmonton's summers are lovely, with the added bonus of long daylight hours. Of course, once winter hits and the cold hits, things turn for the worse, but my personal preference is that I much prefer -10 and sunny to +2 and drizzling, or -2 and covered in salt and slush. It's easy to keep warm when it's cold. It's harder to stay dry when it's wet. And it's near impossible to avoid getting slushed in Ottawa. Of course, I no longer live in any of those places. Here in Kim City, summers are dry and hot, winters are mild, we have lovely snow in the hills for winter activities, and the only climate worry we have is the constant worry of forest fires burning the place to the ground during summer. -k

And do you think the Kenney Party would be substantively different than the Harper Party? Do you envision the Kenney Party becoming the broad-minded, Big Tent that Mr Walmsley hopes to see the CPC become post-Harper? -k

I admit that I've provided an accurate summary of his argument. The link to the article is provided in the opening post of this thread. The relevant portion of the editorial is also quoted in the opening post of the thread: And I provided a link to his Q&A and his comments there a couple of pages back. Anybody is free to make up their own mind as to whether my summary of his ridiculous position is fair and accurate. Which of course it is. Have a nice day, and don't drink too much Kool-Aid! -k

I'm not quoting directly, I'm paraphrasing the contents of the Globe & Mail endorsement as well as his comments in his Q&A that I liked to earlier today. -k

This endorsement isn't aimed at those of you who have had your votes made up since day 1. This endorsement is a plea to those undecided voters who might have still considered voting CPC based on the economic argument but have since decided against CPC because they've become disgusted with the CPC tactics. He's pleading for those people to forget all the stuff about the campaign that they've become disgusted by and just focus on the economy. "Guys! I get that you're angry about the fear-mongering, the demonizing of Muslims, the wedge politics, the outright fabrications, and so-on. But guys! Let's just focus on the economy! That other stuff is disappointing to me, too, but maybe Stephen Harper will resign after the election! Maybe a new leader will return the Conservatives to being a Big Tent party! And all that stuff you're angry about would go away! Let's just consider the possibility! It could happen! Please?" -k

Yeah yeah she flew all over the world advocating for it for years when she was Secretary of State, but now she's against it. To paraphrase John Kerry, she was for it before she was against it. -k

That's right Tim, there's gotta be a way to blame this on the government somehow! -k

Certainly! If you like what Stephen Harper brings to the table, vote CPC. I agree wholeheartedly! But if you don't like the CPC in its current state but you vote CPC anyway because the Eeeediot In Chief at the Globe & Mail says that if the CPC win, Harper might resign and you could get the warm-fuzzy centre-right party you wish we had, then you're a pathetic sucker. -k

Harper, Obama, Clinton, whoever wins the Republican nomination, they're all for it. I think Mulcair is the only one who's flat out said he's against the TPP. -k

I'm not sure about that. The phrase "Who do you know in the PMO?" is a cynical description of how business got done in the Chretien years. It predates Harper by quite some time. -k

If you take a look at the Facebook Q&A by G&M Editor In Chief David Walmsley, it is clear that he is very literally endorsing a CPC win and Harper resignation: Etc. -k

These four posts sum up exactly why I feel think this endorsement is monumentally stupid: First off, why would you vote for a party with no idea who would become Prime Minister if they win? Second, I find it difficult to believe that the CPC would be *better* without Harper. Third, why would one assume that the aspects of the CPC that they don't like would improve without Harper, or that the stuff they do like about the CPC would remain the same without Harper? Argus floated this idea some months ago: what if the CPC made Harper's resignation part of their election platform? Promise to find a new PM after the election? If I recall his support for the idea was based on the assumption that somebody he likes, like Jason Kenney, would win. But that's just an assumption. The truth is we don't have any idea what a post-Harper CPC would be like. Supporting the CPC on the assumption that Harper will step down and the party will be better after he's gone is like buying a computer case with no CPU inside. The salesguy assures you that it'll have a CPU installed after you pay for it, but can't tell you how much memory it'll have, how fast the processor runs, or even operating system will be installed. -k

And will somebody be cross-examining people during the oath to determine if they're telling the truth? -k

And? What's going to happen? The judge, carefully studying someones face while they swear the oath, is going to say "I'm not convinced you really mean it! CITIZENSHIP REVOKED!!" I highly doubt it. I am 100% in support of the principle that someone's face should be visible while they are giving testimony and being cross-examined, because the right to a fair trial trumps all else. But at a citizenship ceremony? What's the point? -k

Yaaaaay! The new Conservative coalition: elderly redneck anglophones and snooty pur-laine francophones! -k

I might wear a Halloween mask when I go vote. I just need two pieces of ID. Doesn't even need to be photo ID. They don't need to see my face. -k

Niqabs at citizenship ceremonies has to be the stupidest non-issue to ever impact an election in this country. It disgusts me that dumb-guys have turned it into a campaign issue. It disgusts me even more that it appears to be working. -k

What specifically are you referring to? I seem to recall previous discussions of mental illness and mass shootings involved a member here blaming everything on "big pharma!" as "the Mass Murder Suicide Pills!!!" were obviously responsible for everything. -k

What are you proposing here? Everybody who has ever received treatment for mental health issues should go on some kind of watch-list? Leaving aside the obvious privacy concerns, have you considered the potential impact of flagging everybody who seeks treatment for mental health issues as a potential hazard? Voluntary self-reporting is the first and by far most common way for people to get help for mental health problems. Only when things have already gone badly do people get mental health treatment through other means. And it is hard enough already for people to talk to their doctor about feelings of depression or anxiety. Even people who really ought to see a doctor often talk themselves out of it ("It's just regular feelings, everybody has them", "I can get through this without help", "I'll feel like a wimp if I go cry to my doctor about this", "everybody will think I'm nuts", etc.) How much harder will it be to convince people who need help to talk to their doctors if you add potential loss of rights and freedoms to the reasons people already find to avoid seeking help? -k

Yeah, it's pretty depressing that instead of talking about issues of any substance, they have latched onto a strategy of trying to appeal to dumb-guys by ranting about niquabs. -k

I think there's a serious discussion to be had on this issue, but no serious discussion can start with Alex Jones. Let's talk about TPP using real information from real sources, not the deranged paranoid ravings of a mentally unstable idiot. -k