New Liberal Ad -- "New Low"

[kimmy]

Of course that's your opinion based on your own biased Conservative views right?

The ad is all about accountability and how Harper refuses to accept his Minister and his government's role in it.

The ad makes no attempt at all to assign accountability for the listeriosis outbreak.

The ad does not blame Harper for lax food inspection regulations. The ad blames Harper for not firing a guy who made crass remarks.

You can say otherwise as many times as you wish, but that does not actually change the content of the ad. The ad does not say what you wish it said; your insistence to the contrary indicate either very poor comprehension skills, a desire to revise facts to make them more flattering to the Liberals, or a psychological disconnection from reality.

Perhaps you should call the Liberal campaign team and suggest to them that they produce the ad you wish they had made, instead of the ad they actually made.

-k

[JaysFan]

God forbid that you failed to respond to my post about Dion breaking his promise that he would maintain the high road during the campaign.

Somehow that promise pales in comparison to one of accountability in which 18 people have lost their lives due to the Conservatives policies.

I can see why you'd want to make the issue about Dion though. Anything to take the spotlight off of someone that's defending the actions of someone who's policies resulted in Canadians dying needlessly and cracking jokes about their deaths.

[kimmy]

No, you didn't imagine the Chretien era at all. Although I'm sure many Conservatives have a very selective memory of the Conservatives own negative advertising.

http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/prime_mini...ics/2084-12983/

Yeah, I saw that. It does nothing to change the fact that the Liberals mastered the art of slandering and smearing their opponents and employed it faithfully from the end of the Mulroney era right through to present day. People (ie BC Chick) who'd claim this was something new in Canada that the CPC just invented are stunningly wrong.

-k

[JaysFan]

The ad makes no attempt at all to assign accountability for the listeriosis outbreak.

The ad does not blame Harper for lax food inspection regulations. The ad blames Harper for not firing a guy who made crass remarks.

You can say otherwise as many times as you wish, but that does not actually change the content of the ad. The ad does not say what you wish it said; your insistence to the contrary indicate either very poor comprehension skills, a desire to revise facts to make them more flattering to the Liberals, or a psychological disconnection from reality.

Perhaps you should call the Liberal campaign team and suggest to them that they produce the ad you wish they had made, instead of the ad they actually made.

-k

Apparently you're impaired on the Cons kool aid. Try reading the captions on the newspaper and listening to the opening statements.

"As Canadians were dying because of failed food safety measures" The man Harper put in charge was worrying about politics"

[capricorn]

Somehow that promise pales in comparison to one of accountability in which 18 people have lost their lives due to the Conservatives policies.

Great. Now you want to assign grades to Dion's promises. Two Conservative promises equals one Liberal promise. Sound fair to you?

[JaysFan]

Great. Now you want to assign grades to Dion's promises. Two Conservative promises equals one Liberal promise. Sound fair to you?

Making light of Canadians deaths are you?

That is the Conservatives message right?

[capricorn]

Making light of Canadians deaths are you?

??????????????????

[nothinarian]

??????????????????

The struggle is always between the individual and his sacred right to express himself and the power structure that seeks conformity, suppression, and obedience. William O. Douglas

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Read your signature 15 times and couldn't understand how you could back harper with his penchant for muzzling underlings and your obvious belief in free speech .... puzzling no????????????????????????????????

[shelphs]

The Conservatives are very much hoping that Dion will try to attack Harper's record on the environment.

This comment confuses me. Harper's record on the environment is not as good as one might think if one thinks Harper's record is as good as Harper says it is.

The video below shows how famous environmentalist David Suzuki and Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning Al Gore (he and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the Nobel Peace Prize Prize for their actions against global warming) condemn the Conservatives' environmental plan: Turning the Corner. Who do you trust when it comes to the environment, David Suzuki and Al Gore or Stephen Harper?

go the website below if you're interested in the truth

And all the sources have been cited, so please look at them and confirm for yourself that none of the videos or articles have been taken out of context.

Edited September 21, 2008 by shelphs

[Argus]

But that's the truth.

You think the Tory base is made up of rich people who want to pay a fortune for health care like they do in the US?

You think Tory politicians want to destroy health care so they can be thrown out of office in the next election?

Even if you can't trust people to be honest you can usually trust them to do what is in their own interests.

[capricorn]

The struggle is always between the individual and his sacred right to express himself and the power structure that seeks conformity, suppression, and obedience. William O. Douglas

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Read your signature 15 times and couldn't understand how you could back harper with his penchant for muzzling underlings and your obvious belief in free speech .... puzzling no????????????????????????????????

I support the Conservatives because I prefer their policies to those of the other parties. I don't believe my right to free speech is threatened under a Harper government.

[Argus]

Hey Argus, remember this classic ad?

Good times eh?

Every party in every campaign dutifully searches through all their picture archives to find the least flattering pictures of their opponents. We can see it this campaign in both Liberal and NDP ads - as well as from the Tories. That's nothing new at all. But when the Tories did it to Chretien suddenly there was a huge fuss because, frankly, Chretien is an ugly man, and he has a deformity in the way he talks. That apparently makes it evil to portray him as ugly in the same way that, well, his party did to Joe Clark, for example, in all those ads which highlighted him as a chinless wonder. But that was fair, right?

[Argus]

Political opportunism?

I think of it as the Liberals demanding accountability of the Conservatives for the deaths of 18 Canadians due to the Conservatives mindless cuts. It was their de-regulation of meat inspection which led to this.

Thanks for letting us know. I guess we can cancel those plans for an inquiry now. After all, you've already interviewed everyone involved, inspected the packing plants, and arrived at the proper conclusions.

It was that guy's fault, the one you don't like. Quelle surprise.

[Argus]

Wrong. You had a problem with the Liberals ad because it holds the Conservatives accountable for their actions. You implied that the Liberals were wrong to do so.

Let me ask what your response would be to a Conservative Party ad which exploited the deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, with suitably sad music, and blamed it on the Liberals for sending them there after slashing the military budget so they didn't have proper equipment. We don't yet know for sure whether the listeriosis thing would have or even could have been prevented if the government hadn't changed procedures, but we do know Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan because of the lack of equipment.

[marksman]

No one who supports the Liberals has any right to accuse any other party of running a dirty campaign, because clearly, you like them.

If everyone used that way of thinking then noone could ever complain about anyone else. Every party's run dirty campaigns therefore no one can accuse anyone of anything. Maybe that's not a bad idea.

What'd be revolutionary is people approaching every party that runs negative campaigns no matter who the party is and complaining. I'm not holding my breath though.

[marksman]

I support the Conservatives because I prefer their policies to those of the other parties. I don't believe my right to free speech is threatened under a Harper government.

I'm guessing you're not in the film or tv production business

[kimmy]

This comment confuses me. Harper's record on the environment is not as good as one might think if one thinks Harper's record is as good as Harper says it is.

The Conservatives might hope the Liberals attack based on the environment for 2 reasons:

* the Liberals' record on the environment was not good either. (Remember all the steps they took toward implementing a plan to reach the commitments we made in Kyoto? They had a majority government for many years, and all they actually did was put Rick Mercer on TV to talk about the "One Ton Challenge".)

* the environment has been fizzling as an election issue for the Liberals thus far.

-k

[JaysFan]

Let me ask what your response would be to a Conservative Party ad which exploited the deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, with suitably sad music, and blamed it on the Liberals for sending them there after slashing the military budget so they didn't have proper equipment. We don't yet know for sure whether the listeriosis thing would have or even could have been prevented if the government hadn't changed procedures, but we do know Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan because of the lack of equipment.

Canadian soldiers choose to sign up to serve in the military. If they die, they have done so knowingly because they knew and accepted the risks and state of the military going in.

Innocent people died at the hands of the Conservatives cuts. Innocent people that were completely unaware of the risks of eating the food products and unaware that they were no longer properly being inspected.

Big difference.

[Argus]

Canadian soldiers choose to sign up to serve in the military. If they die, they have done so knowingly because they knew and accepted the risks and state of the military going in.

Innocent people died at the hands of the Conservatives cuts. Innocent people that were completely unaware of the risks of eating the food products and unaware that they were no longer properly being inspected.

Big difference.

Big difference? The only difference is like many on the left you don't give a shit about the military and have contempt for those in it. Most of the country is rather different.