Please Mr. Ignatieff, do not appease Harper

normanchateau · January 23, 2009

The Liberals took almost every seat in Ontario. That was the key to their victories. Harper hasn't been able to do that because of all the immigrants and homosexuals in Toronto.

That's one hypothesis for Harper's lack of success in Toronto. Another is that Harper doesn't do well in cities where there are universities and a large proportion of educated citizens. The largest Liberal plurality in British Columbia in the last election was in Vancouver Quadra where the University of British Columbia is located. Montreal's university ridings voted Liberal. Edmonton Strathcona, where the University of Alberta is located, kicked out their CPC MP in the last election and voted NDP. Must be all those homos and immigrants in Edmonton. :rolleyes:

blueblood · January 23, 2009

That's one hypothesis for Harper's lack of success in Toronto. Another is that Harper doesn't do well in cities where there are universities and a large proportion of educated citizens. The largest Liberal plurality in British Columbia in the last election was in Vancouver Quadra where the University of British Columbia is located. Montreal's university ridings voted Liberal. Edmonton Strathcona, where the University of Alberta is located, kicked out their CPC MP in the last election and voted NDP. Must be all those homos and immigrants in Edmonton.

Winnipeg South - UofM

Brandon Souris - Brandon University

Calgary - UofC

Saskatoon - UofS

That's right educated people don't vote for Harper :rolleyes:

normanchateau · January 23, 2009

Winnipeg South - UofM
Brandon Souris - Brandon University

Calgary - UofC

Saskatoon - UofS

That's right educated people don't vote for Harper

Here's a revised hypothesis. Those who live in Canadian ridings with the best universities in the world are less likely to vote for Harper. Note that only three Canadian universities are ranked among the top 50 universities in the world:

http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/news/item/?item_id=22166

None of the universities you listed even made it into the top 100.

blueblood · January 23, 2009

Here's a revised hypothesis. Those who live in Canadian ridings with the best universities in the world are less likely to vote for Harper. Note that only three Canadian universities are ranked among the top 50 universities in the world:
http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/news/item/?item_id=22166

None of the universities you listed even made it into the top 100.

Keep moving the goal posts. Nice double standard on the Universities. So people who go to prairie Universities are stupider than those who don't? You sir are a fool. As much as it pains you stupid people vote for NDP, Liberal, CPC, Green, and BQ. Smart people vote for NDP, Liberal, CPC, Green, and BQ. But don't let the facts and logic get in the way of your version of the truth.

normanchateau · January 23, 2009

So people who go to prairie Universities are stupider than those who don't?

You must be hallucinating. I never said that. :rolleyes:

Argus · January 23, 2009

That's one hypothesis for Harper's lack of success in Toronto. Another is that Harper doesn't do well in cities where there are universities and a large proportion of educated citizens. The largest Liberal plurality in British Columbia in the last election was in Vancouver Quadra where the University of British Columbia is located. Montreal's university ridings voted Liberal. Edmonton Strathcona, where the University of Alberta is located, kicked out their CPC MP in the last election and voted NDP. Must be all those homos and immigrants in Edmonton.

My hypothesis has the advantage of reality. Yours leaves a good deal to be desired. I'll not doubt that university students, being generally a simplistic and ignorant bunch filled with emotions and not much common sense, would be more likely to vote left than right - if they voted - which, for the most part ,they do not. As far as "educated" people go, those with higher educational levels tend to have more money, and they tend to live in suburbs, not downtown. The downtown areas in most cities tend to be filled with the poor, not the well-heeled. Oh there are a few very nice condos downtown, especially along waterfronts, but for the most part, if you have education and money, you want to live in a nice house, and most of those are in the suburbs.

blueblood · January 23, 2009

You must be hallucinating. I never said that.

You certainly are implying it.

normanchateau · January 23, 2009

As far as "educated" people go, those with higher educational levels tend to have more money, and they tend to live in suburbs, not downtown. The downtown areas in most cities tend to be filled with the poor, not the well-heeled. Oh there are a few very nice condos downtown, especially along waterfronts, but for the most part, if you have education and money, you want to live in a nice house, and most of those are in the suburbs.

If your hypothesis is correct, my riding must be the exception. I live in Vancouver Quadra where 57% of all adults have a university degree and the average family income is $145,000. The University of British Columbia is located in Vancouver Quadra which had the highest Liberal plurality in British Columbia in the October election. Few students can afford to live in this riding.

Oleg Bach · January 23, 2009

My hypothesis has the advantage of reality. Yours leaves a good deal to be desired. I'll not doubt that university students, being generally a simplistic and ignorant bunch filled with emotions and not much common sense, would be more likely to vote left than right - if they voted - which, for the most part ,they do not. As far as "educated" people go, those with higher educational levels tend to have more money, and they tend to live in suburbs, not downtown. The downtown areas in most cities tend to be filled with the poor, not the well-heeled. Oh there are a few very nice condos downtown, especially along waterfronts, but for the most part, if you have education and money, you want to live in a nice house, and most of those are in the suburbs.

Did some volunteer work on and around the University Of Toronto...having watched people for trhe last 50 years I did notice that the students seemed of a lower quality mentally and phyically. No longer is it the bright and well bred individual form the "good family" that you see but the sons and daughters of the blue collar set. It's no longer about being educated and truely informed on the workings of the world but it's about social conditioning. You can be the brightest and most gifted person on the planet and you will be rejected by todays corporations when seeking employment - They want one thing from the individual - total and blind compliance to their agendas. They don't care if you are educated - they want you conditioned and indoctrinated -university grads are dumb these days.

Muddy · January 23, 2009

Maybeso, but almost no one ever gets to see and meat his or her potential MPs - or their actual MPs. So no one knows if they're smart or not. No one knows if they avoid talking about issues or not. All the majority have to go on when it comes time to vote is what the party says.

If you don`t take an interest in who wants to govern your little piece of Canada,then you will probably not get to know them. One must lift ones derrier from the sofa and attend all candidates meetings,pick up the phone and call that contenders riding office and ask to speak to the candidate. Democracy is a very fragile thing that was given to you to hold dearly by those who went before us. Good idea to get to know all the candidates and speak with them and no matter your decision ,thank each and everyone of them for being part of your countrys democracy. Without them we could have but a party state.

Argus · January 24, 2009

If you don`t take an interest in who wants to govern your little piece of Canada,then you will probably not get to know them. One must lift ones derrier from the sofa and attend all candidates meetings,pick up the phone and call that contenders riding office and ask to speak to the candidate. Democracy is a very fragile thing that was given to you to hold dearly by those who went before us. Good idea to get to know all the candidates and speak with them and no matter your decision ,thank each and everyone of them for being part of your countrys democracy. Without them we could have but a party state.

All of the above is quite true. However, in reality, a large number of people won't even know the candidate's name. If they didn't print the party next to it they wouldn't know who to vote for. You can do your careful research, but there's another 15,000 voters in your riding who are simply going to vote based on the advertising they saw, or a simplistic belief that this or that party is evil or wonderful, or responsible for this or that - or going to solve this or that.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Argus

Molly · January 24, 2009

That's part of why I believe that party affiliations should be removed from ballots. If you can't even inform yourself to that degree, then you should probably do us all a faovr and abstain anyway.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Molly

normanchateau · January 25, 2009

Nice double standard on the Universities. So people who go to prairie Universities are stupider than those who don't? You sir are a fool.

Revising a hypothesis when presented with additional data makes someone a fool? Your false misattributions say far more about you than about me.

Apparently you have yet to acquire either debating skills or basic knowledge of scientific reasoning.

At no point did I claim that people who go to Prairie universities are stupider than those who don't. Some of the brightest people in the world have had no university training whatsoever and there's no shortage of fools with university training.

blueblood · January 25, 2009

Revising a hypothesis when presented with additional data makes someone a fool? Your false misattributions say far more about you than about me.
Apparently you have yet to acquire either debating skills or basic knowledge of scientific reasoning.

At no point did I claim that people who go to Prairie universities are stupider than those who don't. Some of the brightest people in the world have had no university training whatsoever and there's no shortage of fools with university training.

I'm guilty of false misattributions. Pot meet kettle.

You are backpeddling your spin about tory supporters being ignorant uneducated backcountry rednecks. Then you spin about how because harper attends church he is automatically a religious zealot. Then there is the spin about how the tories will be the death of Canada.

You are in no position to be throwing out the false misattributions card.

normanchateau · January 25, 2009

I'm guilty of false misattributions. Pot meet kettle.
You are backpeddling your spin about tory supporters being ignorant uneducated backcountry rednecks.

Backpedaling and revising a hypothesis are not equivalent. I presented a hypothesis. You refuted it with actual evidence. I revised it and you discovered that you could not refute the revised hypothesis. Your response to that

was to call me a fool. Your personal attack was entirely inappropriate but you appear incapable of acknowledging that.

Show me where I said that uneducated=ignorant. I don't have this stereotypical belief. Perhaps you do.

gc1765 · January 26, 2009

Good people? <shrug> Define good. My neighbour seems to be a good lady. I sure don't consider her to be an impressive, educated, thoughtful, wise individual worthy of representing me in parliament, though. If 33 million people wanted to round up a few hundred to represent them, one would hope they would be the best and brightest. They're not. I've met quite a few, and had tales told to me about quite a few more, the kind that rarely get into the papers; adultery, misapropriation of office funds, small-minded jealousies, sucking up to party leaders, tantrums, mean-spirited treatments of staff, etc. Good people? They're mostly bland functionaries eager for the jobs because they want to feel important. Few of them are distinguished in any way by academic, military, business or any other achievement. Hell, none of them are even very good looking! It's true I don't know them all. But if a wise, brilliant, honest person with vision and charisma is lurking somewhere in parliament he or she is hiding themselves quite well. If I encountered these people in my private life it would not occur to me to think they were in any way special. Jean Chretien could have delivered my mail and I'd never have thought he should be more than my mailman. Paul Martin could have been the pompous ass middle manager type up the aisle and I wouldn't think he ought to be the leader of the country. Jack Layton would be the used car salesman who gave me a bad feeling (like he's either a crook or a secret serial killer) and caused me to go up the road to another dealer. Stephen Harper could be the dreary accounting head and I'd just hope he didn't bore me to death with his jargon. Dion would have been the temper tantrum prone administration manager we all laughed at and mocked. Ignatieff? Don't know him much yet. I just know he's an ivory tower intellectual who has yet to do or say or write a single thing which impressed me.
None of these people, if I encountered them in private life, would leave me impressed, and thinking they ought to be running the country.

Just out of curiosity...is there anyone you can think of who you would like to see running the country, and if so who and why?

blueblood · January 26, 2009

Backpedaling and revising a hypothesis are not equivalent. I presented a hypothesis. You refuted it with actual evidence. I revised it and you discovered that you could not refute the revised hypothesis. Your response to that
was to call me a fool. Your personal attack was entirely inappropriate but you appear incapable of acknowledging that.

Show me where I said that uneducated=ignorant. I don't have this stereotypical belief. Perhaps you do.

Do you have access to the voting lists? Can you provide proof that everybody with high levels of education from prestigious universities votes ABC?

Fear mongering over complete nonsense like Harper's hidden agenda and that University educated people vote ABC gets you the moniker of fool, wear it well.

Argus · January 26, 2009

Just out of curiosity...is there anyone you can think of who you would like to see running the country, and if so who and why?

Me! I'm the only one I have confidence in.

Honestly, it's hard to tell how anyone would do in the role of politician without seeing them. Would they be honest, or wishy-washy and talk around difficult questions. Would they have integrity and do what's right, or bow to public opinion polls and the neccessity of buying off particular groups of voters - like Quebecers, for example? I really liked Preston Manning in the beginning. He was a breath of fresh air, and unfailingly honest. but as the Reform aged he began to engage in doublespeak just like the rest of them, and do whatever he thought was expedient (expedient for his party and its popularity, not expedient for the country's well-being). I kind of like Lew Mackenzie. He's smart, savvy, well-spoken, and one of the few public figures I haven't seen doubletalk from. But who knows if he'd change his tune if he had to court people for votes.

ToadBrother · January 26, 2009

Me! I'm the only one I have confidence in.
Honestly, it's hard to tell how anyone would do in the role of politician without seeing them. Would they be honest, or wishy-washy and talk around difficult questions. Would they have integrity and do what's right, or bow to public opinion polls and the neccessity of buying off particular groups of voters - like Quebecers, for example? I really liked Preston Manning in the beginning. He was a breath of fresh air, and unfailingly honest. but as the Reform aged he began to engage in doublespeak just like the rest of them, and do whatever he thought was expedient (expedient for his party and its popularity, not expedient for the country's well-being). I kind of like Lew Mackenzie. He's smart, savvy, well-spoken, and one of the few public figures I haven't seen doubletalk from. But who knows if he'd change his tune if he had to court people for votes.

At some point I think you have to dispense with that innate naivete that so many of us have. The evil beast known as realpolitik is ultimately the only arbiter of power. We can sit here all day and talk about how we want more honest and open politicians, more willing to make tough calls, and always governing themselves by certain standards of ethics.

The problem is that to get to the top (party leader or ultimately Prime Minister), you're probably going to have to sacrifice some of your ethical backbone. You're going to owe someone, and they will come a'knockin'.

I don't hold too much against Manning. He and Reform did do a few flip-flops, but mainly, I think, because they made commitments (like pensions) before most of them had even got to the House of Commons, and once you're there, it's a whole different story. Of course he had to make compromises, because, ultimately, when you're in Opposition, every time you negotiate or vote with the Government, you're making deals with the devil. The problem was the impossibility of trying to be a national leader with a very regionalized grassroots movement. That's why he dove into the whole "Unite The Right" scheme, and that alone was pretty much a calculated compromise of a good deal of what Reform had stood for. But the alternative was forever in opposition, delivering the Liberals majority after majority.

gc1765 · January 26, 2009

Me! I'm the only one I have confidence in.

Hehe...I bet everyone feels the same way. I know I wouldn't make the smartest or most charismatic politician, but at least I would be honest.

Honestly, it's hard to tell how anyone would do in the role of politician without seeing them. Would they be honest, or wishy-washy and talk around difficult questions. Would they have integrity and do what's right, or bow to public opinion polls and the neccessity of buying off particular groups of voters - like Quebecers, for example? I really liked Preston Manning in the beginning. He was a breath of fresh air, and unfailingly honest. but as the Reform aged he began to engage in doublespeak just like the rest of them, and do whatever he thought was expedient (expedient for his party and its popularity, not expedient for the country's well-being). I kind of like Lew Mackenzie. He's smart, savvy, well-spoken, and one of the few public figures I haven't seen doubletalk from. But who knows if he'd change his tune if he had to court people for votes.

I agree that there aren't enough honest politicians. I guess we as Canadian voters are to blame since most people probably wouldn't vote for a politician who told it like it is. One could try to blame the media, but ultimately it is us who decides our politicians and it is us who decides what the media does since we have choice over where we get our news from.

Of course, if there is one (former) MP who told it like it is, it was Chuck Cadman. That man was real. The Reform party is usually the last party I would vote for, but I would vote for that man in a second.

Molly · January 26, 2009

I know this will just incite rants, but I'd be happier with Ralph Goodale than anyone else I can think of... and by a margin.

He owns the riding he's in through plain hard work and integrity, not 'cause it's a 'Liberal Riding', and has won election after election against the odds for decades, 'cause the people who know him best admire him most.

Argus · January 26, 2009

At some point I think you have to dispense with that innate naivete that so many of us have. The evil beast known as realpolitik is ultimately the only arbiter of power. We can sit here all day and talk about how we want more honest and open politicians, more willing to make tough calls, and always governing themselves by certain standards of ethics.
The problem is that to get to the top (party leader or ultimately Prime Minister), you're probably going to have to sacrifice some of your ethical backbone. You're going to owe someone, and they will come a'knockin'.

I don't disagree. The system, as we now have it, seems to preclude anyone other than a bland aparathnik (Harper) or double-talking snake (Chretien) from getting to the top.

I don't hold too much against Manning. He and Reform did do a few flip-flops, but mainly, I think, because they made commitments (like pensions) before most of them had even got to the House of Commons, and once you're there, it's a whole different story. Of course he had to make compromises, because, ultimately, when you're in Opposition, every time you negotiate or vote with the Government, you're making deals with the devil. The problem was the impossibility of trying to be a national leader with a very regionalized grassroots movement. That's why he dove into the whole "Unite The Right" scheme, and that alone was pretty much a calculated compromise of a good deal of what Reform had stood for. But the alternative was forever in opposition, delivering the Liberals majority after majority.

Again, I don't have a lot of disagreement here. But while I accepted compromises on things like pensions and living in Stornoway - which really weren't at all important, there comes a time when you make so many compromises you have to ask yourself - what's the point? The alternative is delivering Liberal majorities? Well so what? How is what we've got now significantly different from a Liberal government?

All the nutbars here might scream and whine about the evil extreme right wing neo cons, and mutter darkly about Harper's secret agenda, but effectively, what we have here is virtually indistinguishable from a Liberal government except there's a noted absence of corruption. Then again, they're relatively new. Give them time and the security of a majority and we'll probably see that too.

Argus · January 26, 2009

I know this will just incite rants, but I'd be happier with Ralph Goodale than anyone else I can think of... and by a margin.
He owns the riding he's in through plain hard work and integrity, not 'cause it's a 'Liberal Riding', and has won election after election against the odds for decades, 'cause the people who know him best admire him most.

Of all the people in the Liberal caucus - save perhaps Hedy Fry - I detest Goodale the most. The man seems incapable of saying anything about anything with a huge, heaping dose of self-righteous indignation - much of it, given the context in which I've seen him - clearly phoney. I've said it before, but I imagine him sitting at home in front of a mirror, endlessly practicing his facial expressions to get his scowling indignant look down pat for the cameras. I literally cannot watch him any more. I'll turn the station the instant I see his face. And the only other politician who affects me similarly is Dalton McGuinty - a similar total phoney.

noahbody · January 26, 2009

Here's a revised hypothesis. Those who live in Canadian ridings with the best universities in the world are less likely to vote for Harper. Note that only three Canadian universities are ranked among the top 50 universities in the world:

Are you suggesting that living in a riding of a university somehow makes you more intelligent? That could be useful for a job interview:

Interviewer: I see you went to Yale.

Candidate: I lived in the same riding.

Interviewer: Very impressive.

Mr.Canada · January 29, 2009

Are you suggesting that living in a riding of a university somehow makes you more intelligent? That could be useful for a job interview:
Interviewer: I see you went to Yale.

Candidate: I lived in the same riding.

Interviewer: Very impressive.

lol