jdobbin Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 The guy changes his mind by the hour. What is he doing, channelling John Kerry? Who was Harper channelling when he met Layton and Duceppe at the Delta Hotel to discuss his coalition with them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 The guy changes his mind by the hour. What is he doing, channelling John Kerry? Undecided by Ella Fitzgerald and Chick WebbFirst you say you do ...And then you don't ... And then you say you will ...And then you won't ... You're undecided now ...So what are you gonna do? ... Now you want to play ...And then it's no ... And when you say you'll stay ...That's when you go ... You're undecided now ...So what are you gonna do? ... And it doesn't make much sense ...'Cause you keep me in suspense...And you know it ... Then you promise to return ...When you don't ... If you've got a heart ...And if you're kind ... Then don't keep us apart ...You're undecided now ...So what are you gonna do? http://lyrics.filestube.com/y/you+say+you+...hen+you+don%27t Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Harper has turned the Liberals' "hidden agenda" bogeyman against them. It's plain the Conservatives want to plant the idea in the minds of voters that the Liberals have a hidden agenda to take power via a formal coalition if the Conservatives fail to win a majority in the next election. It worked for awhile for the Liberals why wouldn't it work for the Conservatives? As Flanagan said it doesn't have to true, it just has to be plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Harper has turned the Liberals' "hidden agenda" bogeyman against them. It's plain the Conservatives want to plant the idea in the minds of voters that the Liberals have a hidden agenda to take power via a formal coalition if the Conservatives fail to win a majority in the next election. It worked for awhile for the Liberals why wouldn't it work for the Conservatives? As Flanagan said it doesn't have to true, it just has to be plausible. Because a majority of Canadians never trusted Harper to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Harper has turned the Liberals' "hidden agenda" bogeyman against them. It's plain the Conservatives want to plant the idea in the minds of voters that the Liberals have a hidden agenda to take power via a formal coalition if the Conservatives fail to win a majority in the next election. It worked for awhile for the Liberals why wouldn't it work for the Conservatives? As Flanagan said it doesn't have to true, it just has to be plausible. It eventually backfires but by all means give it a try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Because a majority of Canadians never trusted Harper to begin with. Can you offer proof that some of this mistrust did not come about from the Liberals' relentless campaign that Harper was akin to the anti-christ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 It eventually backfires but by all means give it a try. I'm in no position to second guess the Conservative war room. Hammering on a potential coalition delays the focus shifting to the shortcomings of this Conservative government. For how long remains to be seen and depends on the opposition changing the channel. I am not so partisan as to think the Conservatives didn't screw up on some levels and they will be challenged on it at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Can you offer proof that some of this mistrust did not come about from the Liberals' relentless campaign that Harper was akin to the anti-christ? Considering that advertising is what got Harper elected in the first place, I doubt that had anything to do with it. Ever since, the Liberals haven't even had enough money to run ads. Nice try though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) I'm in no position to second guess the Conservative war room. Hammering on a potential coalition delays the focus shifting to the shortcomings of this Conservative government. For how long remains to be seen and depends on the opposition changing the channel. I am not so partisan as to think the Conservatives didn't screw up on some levels and they will be challenged on it at some point. It certainly made Ignatieff say no coalition in the last day and say it again in reply to the Tory ad campaign. However, at some point the media are likely to move on and the new focus might be on the Tory ad campaign itself. Edited September 12, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Ever since, the Liberals haven't even had enough money to run ads. I didn't know the Liberals were so broke when Martin campaigned against Harper. There didn't seem to be a shortage of Liberal ads on TV. Of course, they did waste advertising money on a couple of ads they pulled because even they admitted were so offensive. Maybe that's what broke them. Nice try though. Don't kid yourself. You didn't answer my question but never mind I figured you wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 However, at some point the media are likely to move on and the new focus might be on the Tory ad campaign itself. That's fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I didn't know the Liberals were so broke when Martin campaigned against Harper. There didn't seem to be a shortage of Liberal ads on TV. Of course, they did waste advertising money on a couple of ads they pulled because even they admitted were so offensive. Maybe that's what broke them.Don't kid yourself. You didn't answer my question but never mind I figured you wouldn't. Look more carefully. I said that Martin's ad campaign itself is what got Harper elected. People were disgusted at what he did. Them being poor referred to the election under Dion. I more than answered your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Look more carefully. I said that Martin's ad campaign itself is what got Harper elected. People were disgusted at what he did. Them being poor referred to the election under Dion. I more than answered your question. Yup, I reread your post and now get your drift. I appreciate the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Considering that advertising is what got Harper elected in the first place, I doubt that had anything to do with it. Ever since, the Liberals haven't even had enough money to run ads. Nice try though.That's nonsense. If money were the sole deciding factor, Belinda Stronach would now be the leader of the Conservative party.Nicky, are you really a democrat or rather a closet fascist? Are you willing to accept that your fellow citizens are not dupes and may view the world differently from you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Yup, I reread your post and now get your drift. I appreciate the clarification. No prob bob. As long as we keep it civil and no one gets called a fascist we can have fun and debate issues. Oh, wait.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 That's nonsense. Actually, Nicky has a point August. The negative Liberal ads against Harper did work against the Liberals. And on top, Adscam was still fresh in the voters' minds and they wanted to punish the Liberals. Yet, I still maintain that the Liberal smear campaign against Harper has had a lasting effect with many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) That's nonsense. If money were the sole deciding factor, Belinda Stronach would now be the leader of the Conservative party.Nicky, are you really a democrat or rather a closet fascist? Are you willing to accept that your fellow citizens are not dupes and may view the world differently from you? There's a difference between the leadership and federal elections. In leadership convention it's all about pleasing the base. In the Conservatives case, moving to the right. Belinda Stronach is about as red a Tory as they came, which explains not only why she didn't win but went to the Liberals DESPITE her money. As for her own personal cash, I'm not sure exactly what it says about using personal money for campaigns, but her dad (who has the real money in the family [she was my MP, actually!]) could've only donated a grand anyways. Goes against election rules. In terms of money in federal elections, it makes all the difference. These days, its less about many hands you can shake and more about how many ads you can get on the radio and TV. It's as simple as that. Whoever can put out more convincing ads, the better chance they have. Is it any shock that the last election brought the worst Liberal results together with their worst fund raising efforts? As for being a fascist, that's the most ridiculous god damned thing I've ever heard. Debate between ideologies is what makes democracies great. Not everyone should conform. Do I think people are dupes? Sure, I think some people are dupes, but in the end they're entitled to believe what they do no matter how stupid it is. My opinion is, (one which I'm entitled to under our democratic constitution, mind you) that perhaps you shouldn't embarass yourself by calling people things you clearly have no understanding of. Edited September 13, 2009 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Actually, Nicky has a point August. The negative Liberal ads against Harper did work against the Liberals. And on top, Adscam was still fresh in the voters' minds and they wanted to punish the Liberals. Yet, I still maintain that the Liberal smear campaign against Harper has had a lasting effect with many people. Precisely, on boards like these or even the globe and mail boards you'll see people calling the current batch of liberals liers and thieves when the people in the party now realistically had nothing to do with it either by not being elected officials close to the party or being considered back benchers and not worthy of such information. It's definitely had a lasting effect and this Harper crap only helps....thus far. I think that secret tape could hurt a lot more than people think. People were afraid of the Alliance for exactly the fears of hidden agenda politics. Harper has been squeaky clean since he was elected and this video could bring that fear of the reform storming back. Or not. I'd like to see the polls in a week. Should be an interesting campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Someone had better do something honest soon - look at the finacial collapse - it was just a warning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 (edited) These days, its less about many hands you can shake and more about how many ads you can get on the radio and TV. It's as simple as that. Whoever can put out more convincing ads, the better chance they have.Well, I disagree on this. A party can have lots of money to advertise nonsense, and people won't buy it. Sorry, I'm a democrat.As for being a fascist, that's the most ridiculous god damned thing I've ever heard. Debate between ideologies is what makes democracies great. Not everyone should conform. Do I think people are dupes? Sure, I think some people are dupes, but in the end they're entitled to believe what they do no matter how stupid it is. My opinion is, (one which I'm entitled to under our democratic constitution, mind you) that perhaps you shouldn't embarass yourself by calling people things you clearly have no understanding of.You say that you respect other people's opinion but you also believe that expensive advertising campaigns can make them choose something that they don't believe. As you say, "Sure, I think some people are dupes". How many?Nicky, when you start calling your fellow citizens "dupes", you've walked away from a critical ingredient of civilization: respect for opposing opinion. That's why I used the term "closet fascist". I'll be the first to admit that there are lunatics and idiots in this world. But I would never describe people who simply disagree with me in such terms. --- To put this simply Nicky so that you will understand me: I happen to disagree with your nonsense and I don't consider myself a dupe. There are other thoughtful people like me and I think you are wrong to call us all dupes. Edited September 13, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 I agree with you, August, that people aren't, on the whole, such easy dupes, but while we are on the subject of ad campaigns.... the theory of the Liberal attack ads 'smearing' Harper has risen to something of a mantra in this setting. While there certainly were ads aired that were not flattering to him (surprise, surprise) it takes a serious buy-in to Newspeak to accept that they held any particular equivalence to the bombardment of misrepresentation and personalization that the Conservatives have been shovelling ever since. Scale alone makes such acceptance of near-equivalence into pure nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Here it is, hot off the press!http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/abc/home/cont...tieff_ei_090911 " 11/09/2009 11:10:35 AM CTV.ca News Staff The Liberal Party will not enter into a deal to form a coalition government with other opposition parties in the next election, according to leader Michael Ignatieff. " Told ya! I'll file that one next to this one,"If you elect me,I will get rid of the GST!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 I agree with you, August, that people aren't, on the whole, such easy dupes, but while we are on the subject of ad campaigns....the theory of the Liberal attack ads 'smearing' Harper has risen to something of a mantra in this setting. While there certainly were ads aired that were not flattering to him (surprise, surprise) it takes a serious buy-in to Newspeak to accept that they held any particular equivalence to the bombardment of misrepresentation and personalization that the Conservatives have been shovelling ever since. Scale alone makes such acceptance of near-equivalence into pure nonsense. I recall an attack ad that the Liberals never ended up using at the time.Apparently the ad claimed that Harper would,in effect,send armed troops into the streets of Quebec or something idiotic like that.Wasn't there also an ad by the Libs that showed a handgun pointing at the audience? Seems to me the "hidden agenda"attacks are still paying huge dividends to this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Well, I disagree on this. A party can have lots of money to advertise nonsense, and people won't buy it. Sorry, I'm a democrat.You say that you respect other people's opinion but you also believe that expensive advertising campaigns can make them choose something that they don't believe. As you say, "Sure, I think some people are dupes". How many? Nicky, when you start calling your fellow citizens "dupes", you've walked away from a critical ingredient of civilization: respect for opposing opinion. That's why I used the term "closet fascist". I'll be the first to admit that there are lunatics and idiots in this world. But I would never describe people who simply disagree with me in such terms. --- To put this simply Nicky so that you will understand me: I happen to disagree with your nonsense and I don't consider myself a dupe. There are other thoughtful people like me and I think you are wrong to call us all dupes. I think you're wrong to say that I called you all dupes. I said some people are which you even agree with. I guess you're a "closet fascist," too. I think there's a considerable difference. I never said I don't have respect for people's arguments. I do. However, I do think some ideas are stupid. Debate on this is what makes a democracy a democracy. How do you think it works? "Oh, you have a different opinion?! Super!" I agree that civility is missing from a lot of debate, but when people don't listen to reason and stick to talking points, then how can it be civilized in the first place? As for the money argument, I never said advertising makes people do things they don't like. It's all a matter of visibility. The more visible your party is the more likely it is to get votes and the more money you've got the more visible your party is. It's the same for selling any type of consumer products. The ones that get the best advertising usually move the most product. It's not brainwashing, it's just marketing and it isn't undemocratic. I'd also REALLY like to know what you think a fascist is. Educate me. Until then no, I won't have respect for your argument because frankly when labelling people things like fascist I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about, which to me is an equal part of having any civilized discussion as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 I'll file that one next to this one,"If you elect me,I will get rid of the GST!" Is that next to where you keep the, "I won't tax income trusts."? 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.