Opposition want to make election about Harper.

[no1ninja]

Should they make it about the G20 "police state"? I actually find that idea pretty funny. I think most Canadians feel that the G20 protesters were a bunch of morons who went looking for trouble. I think that Canadian voters will recall images of burning police cars and smashed storefronts and feel not an ounce of sympathy for the protesters.

So being misinformed is okay?

Now that the 5th estate and many others have shown what actually happened, and that the people there were not "morons" but peaceful activists, retirees and the incapacitated, it's okay to forget that the POLICE ABUSED the public.

...because well, most Canadians were too busy watching "Dancing with the Stars". It's sad that your main point is, that perception is more important than truth. That is Harper in a nutshell.

(Those people in Kent state were a bunch of long haired hippies who deserved to be shot, most Americans hated long hairs. How did that turn out? How dare anyone hate the Vietnam war, we know they are all pot smokers, nothing useful will come of them. Right?)

When will Harper's government recognize that ALL Canadians have a right to express their opinion, not just the elites? (Protesting is dumb, right? Only morons do it? Conservative party is a joke with sentiments like these. It should be changed to "The Police State Party".)

These morons will never get my vote becaue of the G20... AS LONG AS I LIVE! I will always remember, and remind those who don't.

Edited March 14, 2011 by no1ninja

[Evening Star]

I'm not sure the rights violations by G20 security can be pinned on Harper though. And Capricorn is right that stimulus spending was largely the opposition's idea. I think opposition to corporate tax cuts would work as an election issue. The NDP is working the HST, which might get them some mileage. Mainly, I think the opposition parties could, and perhaps should, also make the election about their ideas and what they would do differently.

[bush_cheney2004]

...(Those people in Kent state were a bunch of long haired hippies who deserved to be shot, most Americans hated long hairs. How did that turn out? How dare anyone hate the Vietnam war, we know they are all pot smokers, nothing useful will come of them. Right?)

How did that turn out? Eight guardsmen were indicted but all charges were eventually dismissed. The dead protesters were buried. CSNY rushed "Ohio" record pressings to stores within weeks. The Vietnam War continued for five more years.

[no1ninja]

Only an imbecile would vote for a party that suspended Canadian rights so that PM can show off to his elite buddies.

There is no bigger issue than this. "The Police State Conservatives" need to be voted out.

Edited March 14, 2011 by no1ninja

[no1ninja]

How did that turn out? Eight guardsmen were indicted but all charges were eventually dismissed. The dead protesters were buried. CSNY rushed "Ohio" record pressings to stores within weeks. The Vietnam War continued for five more years.

Who was right? It may have taken a while, but how did that war go? Was it a good idea? What did it do for the American image all over the world.

hmm, maybe those long hairs had a point.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who was right? It may have taken a while, but how did that war go? Was it a good idea? What did it do for the American image all over the world.

Like most other wars...lots of shootin' and bombing...dead soldiers and civilians....typical. The American "image" remained largely unchanged, confirmed to this day in Iraq and Afghanistan. That "image" thing ("Please Love Us") is more important to Canadians with backpacks.

hmm, maybe those long hairs had a point.

If they did, it was soon abandoned to enjoy the evils of corporatism and stock options.

[no1ninja]

Like most other wars...lots of shootin' and bombing...dead soldiers and civilians....typical. The American "image" remained largely unchanged, confirmed to this day in Iraq and Afghanistan. That "image" thing ("Please Love Us") is more important to Canadians with backpacks.

If they did, it was soon abandoned to enjoy the evils of corporatism and stock options.

Right, and look where your country is now.

Banksters paradise.

Is Nixon still cool, doown there? Seems odd that we were so harsh to him back then, in current times he could get away with much more. He would be a patriot of the highest order.

That kind of journalism now, gets you into the stockade. It would be treasonous for a reporter now to do such damage to the office of the president. In the communication age, there would be a warrant to question him at every airport.

Edited March 14, 2011 by no1ninja

[bush_cheney2004]

Right, and look where your country is now.

Pretty much where it has always been...hasn't moved much that I can tell.

Banksters paradise.

"Greed is good".

Is Nixon still cool, doown there? Seems odd that we were so harsh to him back then, in current times he could get away with much more. He would be a patriot of the highest order.

Nixon is way cool compared to the recent lightweights. We don't care what Canada thinks of Nixon....and we know what he thought about Trudeau.

That kind of journalism now, gets you into stockade.

No...it gets you a gig at Fox News Corp.

Edited March 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[g_bambino]

Only an imbecile would vote for a party that suspended Canadian rights so that PM can show off to his elite buddies.

You mean the Liberals?

[Evening Star]

Bush_Cheney2004 is right insofar as that the Kent State shootings, a much worse abuse of police power than the G20 violations, did not dampen Nixon's political fortunes in the least. He won the 1972 election by a massive landslide.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Evening Star

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush_Cheney2004 is right insofar as that the Kent State shootings, a much worse abuse of police power than the G20 violations, did not dampen Nixon's political fortunes in the least. He won the 1972 election by a massive landslide.

Thank you....I voted for Nixon myself. He killed McGovern. Dead protesters are way overrated in that respect. Just ask the Libyans!

[no1ninja]

You mean the Liberals?

The October Crisis was horrible and has stained my image of Trudeau as our countries premier politician.

Would I vote for him after such an act, HELL NO!

However, being a human. I don't mind looking back at the reign of these individuals and in some ways admiring their lives. I enjoy reading about Nixon, he was one hell of smart man. Very interesting to understand that we all can have moments where our ideals wain due to our ego's.

Anger is not rational, it does not help, yet we all feel a degree of it when we are frustrated.

Edited March 14, 2011 by no1ninja

[Evening Star]

I don't think it's fair to bring up the October Crisis when considering a potential present-day election. But I also haven't seen much yet to suggest that the CPC was responsible for the police abuses in Toronto. Perhaps the inquiry will reveal something but so far, it is the provincial government, OPP, and (especially) Toronto Police who have been implicated. And I say this as a McGuinty voter, not a Harper one.

[no1ninja]

It may have done little then... but history does not forget. Propaganda and spin only lasts for so long. The reason is that you need to constantly put effort into it, as the logical conclusion will always be the opposite. After a while, when other issues become more pressing... the spin gets eazed and history sees the tuth for what it is.

The legacy of Nixon speaks for itself. I like tragedies like Macbeth, I can even like the main character... but I never lose sight of the wrong.

(Even the Soviets could not maintain their spin on their horrible misdeeds. It's too hard to demand the energy of future generations to continue spinning for you.)

Edited March 14, 2011 by no1ninja

[g_bambino]

The October Crisis was horrible and has stained my image of Trudeau as our countries premier politician.

Hmmm... Okay, well, at least you're consistent.

But, EStar is right: All the wrongs of the G20 - especially the actions of some of the police that day - can't be pinned on Harper. There were far more causes and effects than just him.

[no1ninja]

Hmmm... Okay, well, at least you're consistent.

But, EStar is right: All the wrongs of the G20 - especially the actions of some of the police that day - can't be pinned on Harper. There were far more causes and effects than just him.

So where are the resignations? Where are the charges? Seems to me that Harper supported how the G20 was handled. I have not heard anything to the contrary (I may change my mind if I do).

Lots of innocents charged, no police or organizers, even though RIGHTS WERE CLEARLY VIOLATED, you can clearly see police assaulting peaceful demonstrators, in some cases when they are turned away from them (its brutal).

I will always remember, that I lived in a time where our police were beating up men with prosthetic legs for protesting. During Harper's reign, during Harper's elite engagement in Toronto.

(Like I said, nothing happened in this city when the power went off on the eastern seaboard... not a car got burnt. None of this had to happen, the city could of protested and the demonstrators could of been ALLOWED to go back to their homes after the protest. They were not allowed to. Anyone who protested was not allowed to return to their homes after a certain time. They wanted to arrest them ALL. They already PLANNED FOR THE KEENNELS. THEY SET THEM UP. THEY WERE WAITING FOR THIS. THIS WAS INTENTIONALLY DONE.)

How is this not an issue? What country is this? "Police Conservia"?

Is this what we want our kids to inherit?

Edited March 14, 2011 by no1ninja

[g_bambino]

Seems to me that Harper supported how the G20 was handled.

Assuming you mean how G20 security was handled, I've never heard anything from him to indicate his opinion either way. And I can say that I don't particularly care; unless it is revealed and turns out to be something utterly crazy, it won't be something I consider when deciding which candidate I'll vote for in the next federal election.

RIGHTS WERE CLEARLY VIOLATED

Again, likely not at Harper's direction. And the courts will deal with anything of the kind.

They already PLANNED FOR THE KEENNELS. THEY SET THEM UP. THEY WERE WAITING FOR THIS.

Yea, because these G[#] summits have a pretty set pattern to them.

[+]

Edited March 14, 2011 by g_bambino

[no1ninja]

Yea, because these G[#] summits have a pretty set pattern to them.

[+]

Exactly, the set pattern is to beat up the protesters and arrest them. So point stands, they knew from the get go what they intended to do. There was no reason to not let those people go home.

They wanted to test their facilities, because they put them up. The facilities held more importance than the people.

This is a big issue for me guys. ...Harper not having an opinion on this either way, is WORSE. Makes him look like he is out to lunch, busy studying for his role as a police officer in a tv special. Pouring over legislation to build more prisons for Canadians.

Edited March 14, 2011 by no1ninja

[scorpio]

The October Crisis was horrible and has stained my image of Trudeau as our countries premier politician.

The War Measures Act was needed at the time to stop further terriorism. Don't forget 1 Quebec politician was murdered and a British Diplomat was kidnapped and would probably have been killed. He did the right thing IMO.

Edited March 14, 2011 by scorpio

[dre]

Good post Kimmy.

About the F-35s. I think with some voters, that taps into the sovereignty question. Does Canada want the most modern equipment available to defend our territory and want the ability to go into action abroad when conditions dictate we must? Harper has laid the groundwork that sovereignty matters when he elevated Arctic sovereignty as one of his platform policies.

If the Liberals harken back to their record of governing with a surplus and their deft handling of the economy, this could well stir memories of Adscam and other Liberal sins. There would be claims that the surplus enjoyed by the Liberals was also a result of cutting transfers to provinces which harmed health care, education and other services provided by the Provinces, reduction of EI benefits, and dipping into the public service pension fund.

About stimulus spending. The Liberals were egging the Conservatives on to spend, and in fact wanted more stimulus spending over and above what the Conservatives proposed. I think the Conservatives can make a case in that respect. The numbers showing a growing economy are a testament that the stimulus package went a long way to putting us on the road to economic recovery. Managing through a recession and achieving deficit reduction ahead of schedule is an achievement the Government can champion effectively. For the Liberals, the economy could prove to be a landmine.

All told, I think the Liberals should run with the ethics question and needless spending, especially with regard to advertising costs of the Economic Action Plan. There are other examples they can raise and the well is deep. Canadians understand numbers when it comes to how their tax dollars are spent. Prorogation, the Speaker's rulings on breach of parliamentary privilege and anything remotely connected most certainly fit this category.

Bottom line, battle lines between the economy and ethical governance are clear cut. Both cases can be put forward with facts and numbers. All other policy planks are peripheral issues unless one side comes up with a brain wave. Then, it will merely be a question of which leader can most forcibly make his case in an election campaign, i.e in the span of 30 days.

IMHO, of course.

My read on it is that most Canadians dont like either of the leaders, and theyre pretty much ambivalent about the parties. I think that no matter what either party says or whatever issues they decide to focus on we'll see another conservative minority government.

I think if ANYTHING hurts harper it will be some of the adds hes allowed to run. These "Ignatieff didnt come back for you" adds with the ominous deep spooky voice and stuff. Those adds show that he basically thinks canadians are abject retards or 9 year olds. Id like to think that type of campaigning would turn Canadians off but Im really not sure anymore.

Im just gonna sit another election out myself. I dont really see any compelling reason to pick one party over another at this point. I think the conservative minorities have been relatively harmless, and semi functional... A liberal minority would be roughly the same.

About the only thing that would get me into the polls is the prospect of either party getting a majority. If that comes to pass Ill vote against whichever party is in range.

[no1ninja]

The War Measures Act was needed at the time to stop further terriorism. Don't forget 1 Quebec politician was murdered and a British Diplomat was kidnapped and would probably have been killed. He did the right thing IMO.

IF that is the case, than its very easy to suspend the rights of an entire nation. The above situation could be orchestrated by anyone for any reason. All we have is ourselves, suspending our own rights in a crisis, seems unencesserily punitive (which in my mind those measures were, since they were only implemented in Quebec)

You may be right though. Sometimes these measures work tactically, even if they fail rational thought.

EXAMPLE:

I heard one gentlemen speak about showing up at a demonstration in the US and listening to what the people had to say. It was at the steps of a courthouse, so you could be a passer by without any political affiliations and be easily persuaded to observe for a duration. This individual did just that. Suddenly, officers started surrounding the group for tactical reasons, this individual suddenly got a bad feeling in his stomach. The police officers jumped him, and accused him of doing something he was not doing, did it loudly and made an example of him.

It took him a while to figure out why HIM. He than realized years later that it is a subversion tactic. Pick out the weakest in the crowd, and make an example of him. The most vocal and demonstrative most likely will have allies in the group, they are prepared for this, jumping one of them will elevate the incident. So by hitting the weakest, most voulnarable, the shock, awe and horror of the victim quickly dispersess that group without incident. Our instinct is to avoid danger, if we are not the victims.

Edited March 14, 2011 by no1ninja

[dre]

Assuming you mean how G20 security was handled, I've never heard anything from him to indicate his opinion either way. And I can say that I don't particularly care; unless it is revealed and turns out to be something utterly crazy, it won't be something I consider when deciding which candidate I'll vote for in the next federal election.

Again, likely not at Harper's direction. And the courts will deal with anything of the kind.

Yea, because these G[#] summits have a pretty set pattern to them.

[+]

Again, likely not at Harper's direction. And the courts will deal with anything of the kind.

Yeah I dont really see the G20 police thing as a partisan issue. The liberals did these fancy international parties too, and protesters got roughed up on their watch as well. I DO see it as a serious issue though, but more in the context of the general attitude of the government towards the populace.

The problem of course is that lots of the people that got rounded up were not even protesters, and lots of the protesters rounded up were being completely docile and peacefull.

But youre right... Harper probably didnt personally order this stuff, and like I said... this is just how the Canadian government treats citizens that express dissent openly.

[no1ninja]

If our leader does not take it seriously, it only means he is complicit. How could you not take this seirously unless, all roads lead to Rome?

Edited March 14, 2011 by no1ninja

[bush_cheney2004]

EXAMPLE:

I heard one gentlemen speak about showing up at a demonstration in the US....

Well done again....invoking an example from the "US" is a time proven technique to win the day. Citations are not needed, as Canadians are conditioned to believe anything bad happening in the "US".

Bravo!

[no1ninja]

Well done again....invoking an example from the "US" is a time proven technique to win the day. Citations are not needed, as Canadians are conditioned to believe anything bad happening in the "US".

Bravo!

Don't be offended, I picked it up from a US massage forum, the Market Ticker, it was a post by an american on there. The example was not to villify the US, but to show a tactic that seems horrible at first but can be used to achive a desired consequence. I am not saying it is the right thing to do. (AND by no means is it exclusive to the US.)

...and by the way I love the US, I love your Declaration of Independence and I have a lot of respect for some of your history. In many ways we are pussies next to you guys... but that mostly goes for British rule. I have more respect for J6P than his government or the corporate lobbying process, of that I am not shy.

Edited March 14, 2011 by no1ninja