Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 It's funny how the media is so intent on having Harper as PM while 65% of the electorate does not. Hmmm... I wonder why that is? Because they actually base their decisions on knowledge and issues? By the way, I've updated the list in the first post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 It's funny how the media is so intent on having Harper as PM while 65% of the electorate does not. Hmmm... I wonder why that is? Mostly because he's the best person for the job, whether anyone realizes it or not. Keep in mind though, that an even higher percentage does not want any one of the other guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 It's funny how the media is so intent on having Harper as PM while 65% of the electorate does not. Hmmm... I wonder why that is? Reporting on discontent and conflict is more profitable, but you probably already knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 The Economist endorses Harper: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...ory_id=12381439 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Because they actually base their decisions on knowledge and issues?By the way, I've updated the list in the first post. So when several hundred economists suggest that we need a "green shift" that's not based on expert opinion, knowledge in your opinion? The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives have offered nothing of real substance, didn't even plan on releasing a platform until it because an issue. And they don't even know how much the Afghan mission is costing, so why should we trust them with the economy? Remember, they've mismanaged it to a near deficit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Mostly because he's the best person for the job, whether anyone realizes it or not. Keep in mind though, that an even higher percentage does not want any one of the other guys. But I could live with a Liberal or NDP PM because I know that even though they have differing perspectives, they still have the best interest of Canadians in mind. Harper is only concerned about corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 So when several hundred economists suggest that we need a "green shift" that's not based on expert opinion, knowledge in your opinion?The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives have offered nothing of real substance, didn't even plan on releasing a platform until it because an issue. And they don't even know how much the Afghan mission is costing, so why should we trust them with the economy? Remember, they've mismanaged it to a near deficit. Near deficit? That's why we're running a $2.9b surplus, well ahead of the ficsal year projection of $2.3b? And yes, lots of economists favour the Green Shift. Lots don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 But I could live with a Liberal or NDP PM because I know that even though they have differing perspectives, they still have the best interest of Canadians in mind. Harper is only concerned about corporations. What's wrong with corporations? Other than the fact that they employ about 90% of the workers in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Interesting editorial from the Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/515896 "The easy way for a newspaper, as for a citizen, would be not to support any party in this election. But this is not a responsible course for a citizen in a democratic society – or for a newspaper that believes it has a responsibility to provide comment and opinion on the issues of the day."Those words, printed on this newspaper's editorial page on Oct. 19, 1972, are as pertinent today as they were 36 years ago when the Star told its readers why "we must withdraw our support for the Liberals" for the first time in 50 years. The editorial explained the dilemma many Canadians faced in that fall election that pitted Pierre Trudeau's incumbent Liberals against Robert Stanfield's Progressive Conservatives: "They are dissatisfied with the Liberals but the alternative is not very attractive either." That soul-searching editorial wrestled with the fact that while the federal Liberal party had long been aligned with the Star's progressive principles, the Star could not support Trudeau's economic policies and the threat of American investment to Canada's independence. It "reluctantly" concluded: "Of the alternatives, both of which are unattractive, we prefer the Conservatives." In looking back on the Star's editorial endorsements for 12 federal elections in the past 40 years, it's clear that elections rarely offer easy choices for either voters or a newspaper that takes seriously its responsibility to be a strong voice in the choice for Canada and the destiny of this country. And though the Star is a small "l" liberal newspaper that speaks out for social and economic justice for all, it may surprise some readers to learn that the Star's editorial endorsement of Canada's Liberal party is never automatic. While it's true the Star has endorsed the Liberals in nine of the 12 elections since 1968 (giving the nod to Stanfield's Tories in 1972 and 1974 and to the NDP under Ed Broadbent in 1979) and today, on this page, endorses Stéphane Dion's Liberals, that support is always the result of much debate and discussion by this newspaper's editorial board. It must be noted that the Star's editorial endorsement represents the Star's institutional voice and does not influence the newsroom's goal of fair news coverage. News and editorial opinions are separate entities, what journalists often compare to the separation of church and state. The editorial board met Thursday to reach its decision for 2008. Under the direction of editorial page editor Ian Urquhart (who wrote the endorsement editorial), five board members weighed in with their views on this election's hard choices. All had closely examined the parties' policies and had the opportunity to question Dion, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May in recent days. Both Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty, declined invitations to meet with the editorial board. For reasons argued strongly in today's editorial, there was no question of the Star endorsing Harper's Conservatives. Traditionally, the Star has backed the party most likely to advance the progressive principles this newspaper supports and, clearly, Harper's neo-conservative strategies are not aligned with the Star's values. But the conclusion that "Stéphane Dion and the Liberals are the best alternative" was not a slam-dunk. As the editorial indicates, the board expressed serious reservations about Dion's leadership ability. Discussion focused on whether the Star should clearly endorse Dion or urge voters to vote strategically within their ridings for the candidate with the best chance of defeating Harper. In the end, the consensus was that a strategic voting endorsement would be a confusing cop-out in this election. The board agreed that Dion is the best alternative to Harper and that the Liberal party's platform is closest to the Star's views. Will the Star's endorsement of Dion's Liberals influence the outcome of Tuesday's election? Numerous studies indicate that endorsements likely don't have a significant effect on voters, though, as Urquhart points out, they do have a greater degree of impact in municipal campaigns, and can sometimes be a "a negative litmus test" causing voters to vote against the newspaper's choice. But editorial endorsements are a vital expression of a newspaper's voice of leadership in its community. And whether the Star's Liberal endorsement persuades or provokes you, in taking a clear, strong stand this newspaper has indeed lived up to its democratic responsibility to foster public debate on matters of importance to citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 But I could live with a Liberal or NDP PM because I know that even though they have differing perspectives, they still have the best interest of Canadians in mind. Harper is only concerned about corporations. This is the same stupid, mindless bleating cliche we've been hearing for years. Yet a cursory check with elections Canada - which I know you have never bothered to do and never WILL bother to do, shows that the great mass of donations for the Conservatives - and before them the Alliance and before them Reform - came in the form of small donations from many, many individuals. The great mass of donations for the Liberal party has always come in large dollar donations from the well-heeled and the big corporations buying their favour. This is why, with the change of the election laws outlawing large donations, the Liberals are on the verge of bankruptcy while the Tories have more than enough money to spend. But don't let facts or logic intrude on your strange little world. You never have before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 What's wrong with corporations? Other than the fact that they employ about 90% of the workers in this country. How many? What is the citation for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 What's wrong with corporations? Other than the fact that they employ about 90% of the workers in this country. The fact that they don't pay their fair share of taxes, that they underpay workers, that they constantly unemploy people and move to Mexico or China, etc. etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 How many? What is the citation for that? Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 The fact that they don't pay their fair share of taxes, that they underpay workers, that they constantly unemploy people and move to Mexico or China, etc. etc. etc. Corporations should pay zero taxes. People should pay taxes. Of course, no one wants that, right? Is your solution to drive all corporations out of the country? That will do wonders for employment and our economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Sad. Sad is that that you say 90% of workers work for corporations. Please produce a cite for that or clearly you are talking out of your hat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 (edited) Sad is that that you say 90% of workers work for corporations. Please produce a cite for that or clearly you are talking out of your hat. Do you dispute that the vast majority of people work for corporations, whether it be their own businesses or others? Take away government employees and, well, pretty much everyone else works for a corporation. I suppose if you want to get technical, there are partnerships, joint ventures and sole proprietorships, but that is effectively dictated by size, project and red tape. Do you have a cite that 90% of workers do not work for corporations? If not, your objection is hat-talking. Edited October 12, 2008 by Jobu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Do you dispute that the vast majority of people work for corporations, whether it be their own businesses or others?Take away government employees and, well, pretty much everyone else works for a corporation. Do you have a cite that 90% of workers do not work for corporations? If not, your objection is hat-talking. That is the most pathetic attempt at not answering the question yet. You are the one that stated 90% of workers in Canada worked for corporations. Back up what you say. I didn't make the claim. You did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 This is the same stupid, mindless bleating cliche we've been hearing for years. Yet a cursory check with elections Canada - which I know you have never bothered to do and never WILL bother to do, shows that the great mass of donations for the Conservatives - and before them the Alliance and before them Reform - came in the form of small donations from many, many individuals. The great mass of donations for the Liberal party has always come in large dollar donations from the well-heeled and the big corporations buying their favour. Yeah, it's funny how pre-teen kids and family pets suddenly have become so supportive of the CPC. This is why, with the change of the election laws outlawing large donations, the Liberals are on the verge of bankruptcy while the Tories have more than enough money to spend. So they changed the laws to eliminate a political rival rather for democratic reform purpoese. Go figure... Funnily enough, though, the Conservatives have there own little scandal in this regard, have they not? But don't let facts or logic intrude on your strange little world. You never have before. Coming from you I find this most ironic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 That is the most pathetic attempt at not answering the question yet. You are the one that stated 90% of workers in Canada worked for corporations. Back up what you say. I didn't make the claim. You did. The point is, most people work for corporations. It's up to you to prove me wrong. The point is valid notwithstanding your pathetic attempts to debate this rather insignificant point of accuracy, which was never intended as a precise point in fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Corporations should pay zero taxes. People should pay taxes. Of course, no one wants that, right?Is your solution to drive all corporations out of the country? That will do wonders for employment and our economy. Oh, so we should not have corporations paying taxes and paying people non-liveable wages so that they'll stay in Canada? How exactly do corporations make money if they don't pay people enough to afford the products they buy? Don't want corporations "driven" out of Canada? Would you agree then that we should get out of NAFTA asap, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 The point is, most people work for corporations. It's up to you to prove me wrong. The point is valid notwithstanding your pathetic attempts to debate this rather insignificant point of accuracy, which was never intended as a precise point in fact. You made the claim of 90%, the onus is on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 The point is, most people work for corporations. It's up to you to prove me wrong. The point is valid notwithstanding your pathetic attempts to debate this rather insignificant point of accuracy, which was never intended as a precise point in fact. No, it isn't up to me to prove you are wrong. I never made the claim. You did. I am calling you out on this. Produce the result that led you to this conclusion. I say you are lying and rather than retreating from your claim, you are lashing out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Oh, so we should not have corporations paying taxes and paying people non-liveable wages so that they'll stay in Canada? How exactly do corporations make money if they don't pay people enough to afford the products they buy?Don't want corporations "driven" out of Canada? Would you agree then that we should get out of NAFTA asap, then? We need all the corporations we can get in Canada. They are a very big reason why our economy is the best in the G7. Higher taxes and other uncompetitive policies will drive this economy into great depths. Flaherty was 100% correct on this point. If we have no corporations, we have no jobs. Though I guess communism is sort of what you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 No, it isn't up to me to prove you are wrong. I never made the claim. You did. I am calling you out on this. Produce the result that led you to this conclusion. I say you are lying and rather than retreating from your claim, you are lashing out. Yep, you're really calling me out. Glad to see you agree with me on my fundamental point, though. Move along now to another thread, teflon dobbin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted October 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 You made the claim of 90%, the onus is on you. The claim was to illustrate that the vast majority of workers are employed by companies. You don't agree? Well, then, who do they work for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.