In Before the Election

[William Ashley]

If no one realized people seem to be indicating that there will be an election called close to the end of this month, and I geuss Election day the begining of May. (a couple days after Prince William's Wedding.

My opinion on this is the following.

1. It is Very good.

2. It is nice because it is after the school term. (although this might lower the youth vote)

Do I geuss it will go one way or another --- no most certianely not. Do I have personal stakes.. not really. Do I plan on voting - highly unlikely unless there is someone in the my local riding that I know and trust to take an initiative into what I value. Bottom line is, I really hope the CPC looses the government, beacuse they arn't responsible with it. I'd like to see a much weaker minority.. that puts the liberals and CPC at about 70-80 tops. 110 110 would be a highly prefered - unless both parties can be removed from the picture completely (and that is about as likely as me inheriting bill gates fortune (the only benefit of this is that both Canada's founding parties will have been destoryed the PC's in the 1990's and the liberals 20 years later. Its been corruption and scandal ongoing for the last 250+ years. And the public hasn't got a clue in continuing to support these goons and theives -taxing the people for their own games and agenda's EXTORTION and infringement of personal liberties.

The NDP does deserve to gain a few seats, they do a good job at voicing a minority voice in Canada. The block will probably pick up 50 seats no matter what. I would be suprised if Canadians actually trust the conservative party to be able to implement law at will (and they have a clean majority in the senate now..- especially with the upcoming provincial potential knowing that the CPC will interfere in the provinces if they have a majority even more. Although It isn't a high likely hood of a total sweep of a majority of the provinces it is equivlenet to giving a madman a super majority. I don't think Canada has seen something quite like it before at this level - Mulrooney gave a show with selling out the economic independence of Canada - but Harper with a Majority would be poised to sell out the legal independence (military and police) - something that is already in the works.

It will be interesting to see if Canada can resist a complete take over of the last vestiges of their institutions turning Canada from a satalite to a puppet. THey spend big- and this is struggling to get budgets through...

We have "cutters" - meaning they will cut the public service, sell off anything not nailed down, and spend money on war, and transfers to corporations of their choice. (this already happening to some extent).

It will be interesting to see if Canadians support that image for Canada - pro zionist, hawkish (picking fights - potentially earning radical enemies and making Canada an actual attack target risk), this of course would require Canada to hyper secure Canada stripping away evven more rights, way more money to a "draining" military industrial complex (the more money that goes to soilders and security means lower productivity and the more money that goes to war goods, means less luxury goods.

Oh and with a majority they can do whatever they want with taxes for 5 years - chances are they will totally ruin Canada anyway so nothing will stop them from taking from the poor and giving to the rich. You know they are zionist that way in that they will try to get even for all the taxes for social programs for the poor. They do it for everything else.

Oh and why need more prisons... more marginalized people - lots of marginals is bad, so they shelve them, that is what the right does.

I can only hope that Canadians know what they are getting themself into with the corporatist hard love approach the CPC will take with a majority. It would be horrible for Canada as a national identity.

Oh and no need to negotiate on Health Care and Pensions.. no need for buy a deal.

I'm a hermit who likes to travel - except for the ridiculus airport taxes already in place (like more than the cost of the airfare... itself...) there really ain't much they can do to my position. I just think the middle class really doesn't know what they are going to get.

The bottom line here is, Canada isn't built for US style policy, it isn't advantageous to apply super power policies to a middle weight.

So what is your say?

If Canadians want to commit suicide it is their choice ---- that is what a Conservative vote means in Mays election.

----

It is just tightening the vice to calamaity. Anything put down will be met with equal or greater force. In a world without Mercy the outcome is clear.

PULL THE TRIGGER.

Edited March 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[Mr.Canada]

It's the Liberals who are in love with corporations. The Liberal Party had almost all of their donations from corporations before it was disallowed. Almost all of the donations to the Conservatives comes from the grassroots, individual people who donate less then $100 a year.

[William Ashley]

It's the Liberals who are in love with corporations. The Liberal Party had almost all of their donations from corporations before it was disallowed. Almost all of the donations to the Conservatives comes from the grassroots, individual people who donate less then $100 a year.

You are deluded to think that the Tories don't pander to a specific list of corporate interest. You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake. Who do you think is the guys cheif of staff right now? The list goes on and on.. it is all corporate interests. IMPERIAL OIL, a slew of US military companies, and US owned companies.

We are talking BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to military and construction firms and the banks.

While cutting corporate taxes by Billions - all while lumping more taxes on the public through hidden taxes like air security tax, HST amongst others.

Look to the people pulling the strings in large part... there is a very developed upper structure.. and if you look at "Grass routes" I say look back to the era of power corp and others and look who is really pulling the strings, and it ain't you or your neighbour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadians_by_net_worth

and no I don't have it out for these people on the contrary - I want to eliminate "personal income taxes"

Take for instance:

according to a plan devised decades ago by Thomson Corporation founder Roy Thomson, when Kenneth Thomson died (June 2006), control of the family fortune passed on to David.

Like you might want to ask if Gerry Schwartz has any strings on Harper right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Schwartz

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/strategy/article.jsp?content=20070323_101620_5300

Edited March 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[capricorn]

Do I plan on voting - highly unlikely unless there is someone in the my local riding that I know and trust to take an initiative into what I value.

Don't expect that a politician will meet your every expectation. He/she just does not exist and if they say yes to all you want then they're lying. Just get out and vote for the one closest to your expectation. But if you don't vote you forfeit the right to come on here and vent against whichever party forms Government, or anywhere else for that matter.

[scribblet]

You are deluded to think that the Tories don't pander to a specific list of corporate interest. You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake. Who do you think is the guys cheif of staff right now? The list goes on and on.. it is all corporate interests. IMPERIAL OIL, a slew of US military companies, and US owned companies.

Like you might want to ask if Gerry Schwartz has any strings on Harper right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Schwartz

I highly doubt that Schwartz has any 'strings' on Harper, IMO it's all tin foil hat time. BTW, calling people scum because they disagree with you, is hardly condusive to an intelligent discussion.

[nicky10013]

Unless Harper pre-empts the politicians (hell, I'd do it if I were him). March 21st. Book it.

[William Ashley]

Don't expect that a politician will meet your every expectation. He/she just does not exist and if they say yes to all you want then they're lying. Just get out and vote for the one closest to your expectation. But if you don't vote you forfeit the right to come on here and vent against whichever party forms Government, or anywhere else for that matter.

I'd run before I'd vote for someone I don't support. Its called disestablishmentarian. No vote, no franchise no support on the contrary bring it down as soon as possible after.

Its called a little wrench back at them.

That is what makes individuals "self partisan" when there is no other functionable option that meets their needs. That situation has been advancing for me since 1996 or so. It doesn't mean I will have power in others lives, but it does mean I have the choice in my own, and the right to breach laws I don't support - bearing the breach of peace context fully recognized. However I work within the law not beyond it. That is why I'm attacked by the institution rather than the cops. That is why dirty ticks are used, because I am immune from the law.

I'm not deluded.

They don't win even if they get a majority in my books.

The only victory is a world without oppression of right values. I can't have that with a division of social value in which my own rights are infringed. I recognize that for everyone else also. that is why I am libertarian - that is why I am SOCIAL. It is about social liberty - without governmental infringement on peoples lives for "control" of peoples lives. There is reasonable interferance on grounds of public safety, and there is oppression - the government Canada has is oppressive.

Also just because my vision isn't rational to be for you, it is the world I live in, I don't expect or demand you to change your view, but I don't agree with you saying to compramise my own, that is you infringing on me. It is you who is wrong in mind. I die or you die eventually or someone you will have to come to reason eventually - otherwise if my values change two wrongs mean only one survives or neither. You don't want me as a sell out to good values - that would be very bad for you. I've experienced that, and I know how to do it better.

Edited March 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[Topaz]

I don't think the Tories will get a majority, there's too many people unemployed or could only find part time jobs and that does go far. I hear that is will be Ontario to put Harper over the top or take him out. There's too many people hurting yet in Ontario and lack jobs and his idea of the HST, so I think he'll lose some in Ontario.

[William Ashley]

I highly doubt that Schwartz has any 'strings' on Harper, IMO it's all tin foil hat time. BTW, calling people scum because they disagree with you, is hardly condusive to an intelligent discussion.

Learn to read.

He is scum for lying, not for disagreeing. I can respect peoples position to disagree with something. That is what discussion is for.

Not everyone has the same best answer - BUT - there is definately a point of fact - that atleast uncovers world view and can correct an incorrect one.

I think my world view is far more sound than the other party's.

Him for instance stating he is lying to fool less educated people if that were the case is a point of fact that would both support his position to disagree and his position for the statement to rest at a mutually agreeable consensus point. Not by saying that is the point of agreement but that there is a point of agreement that finalizes the discourse.

Some might say moot but agreeable.

Edited March 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[scribblet]

Disagreeing with you, is not lying...

[Hydraboss]

Learn to read.

He is scum for lying, not for disagreeing. I can respect peoples position to disagree with something. That is what discussion is for.

Not everyone has the same best answer - BUT - there is definately a point of fact - that atleast uncovers world view and can correct an incorrect one.

I think my world view is far more sound than the other party's.

Him for instance stating he is lying to fool less educated people if that were the case is a point of fact that would both support his position to disagree and his position for the statement to rest at a mutually agreeable consensus point. Not by saying that is the point of agreement but that there is a point of agreement that finalizes the discourse.

Some might say moot but agreeable.

I take it that you are blissfully unaware that most everyone on this board thinks you're a complete idiot. Perhaps learn to spell if you plan on starting a political party (as you announced when you first arrived). You come on here and call people "scum" for "lying" when the only proof of lying you offer is some drug-induced inference you make from someone else's comment.

Did I mention you're an idiot?

Somehow you fell under the impression that if you string enough "complicated" words together that other posters would think you intelligent. I'm here to tell you that that is definitely not the case. You now officially rank right up there with Oleg in coherence of thought.

And, no,

I'd run before I'd vote for someone I don't support. Its called disestablishmentarian. No vote, no franchise no support on the contrary bring it down as soon as possible after.

is not correct. Look up the meaning of "them big words" sometime. Disestablishmentarianism is about being "an opponent of an established order, especially one who opposes state support of an established church". The Canadian federal government is not "religious".

Fuckin' idiot.

[William Ashley]

Disagreeing with you, is not lying...

You sir can read.

[no1ninja]

Don't expect that a politician will meet your every expectation. He/she just does not exist and if they say yes to all you want then they're lying. Just get out and vote for the one closest to your expectation. But if you don't vote you forfeit the right to come on here and vent against whichever party forms Government, or anywhere else for that matter.

George Carlin disagrees with you. (around the 2:10 mark)

(Not arguing with you just trying to bring you a smile.)

Edited March 12, 2011 by no1ninja

[William Ashley]

I'm not going to respond to the first part until you say what number I am thinking of.

Perhaps learn to spell if you plan on starting a political party (as you announced when you first arrived). You come on here and call people "scum" for "lying" when the only proof of lying you offer is some drug-induced inference you make from someone else's comment.

Are you aware of something I'm not in regard to the water supply here? I invite you to give more info on this.

Somehow you fell under the impression that if you string enough "complicated" words together that other posters would think you intelligent.

No.

I'm here to tell you that that is definitely not the case. You now officially rank right up there with Oleg in coherence of thought. And, no, is not correct. Look up the meaning of "them big words" sometime. Disestablishmentarianism is about being "an opponent of an established order, especially one who opposes state support of an established church". The Canadian federal government is not "religious".Fuckin' idiot.

It works for government too.

If I am not coherent to you, it means you lack vital information, and thus the message is not intended for you to understand.

It is called oblique cyphering - it means you only know what I want you to know.

I could say Jack Bean Spracks and unless you are Pat Kirkpatrick you'd have no oogling as to the poodle.

Edited March 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[capricorn]

If I am not coherent to you, it means you lack vital information, and thus the message is not intended for you to understand.

It is called oblique cyphering - it means you only know what I want you to know.

Take me to your leader.

[capricorn]

George Carlin disagrees with you. (around the 2:10 mark)

(Not arguing with you just trying to bring you a smile.)

I could use a laugh about now, but unfortunately, I've been having trouble with the audio on my computer. As soon as I work it out I'll give it a listen. Thanks.

[GWiz]

It's the Liberals who are in love with corporations. The Liberal Party had almost all of their donations from corporations before it was disallowed. Almost all of the donations to the Conservatives comes from the grassroots, individual people who donate less then $100 a year.

Now THAT is HILARIOUS in the EXTREME!

[no1ninja]

The money the liberals took from corps was tribute money! Chretien was heard saying privately, "Pay up bitches, there is an new sheriff in town!".

The conservatives get it for being cronies.

(Sorry, even I know, that the biggest rip offs in this country’s history of the public are under PC leadership.)

Edited March 12, 2011 by no1ninja

[Bryan]

Now THAT is HILARIOUS in the EXTREME!

I'm not sure why you think it's funny. When the rules were changed to disallow corporate donations to political parties, it's the Liberals who were hurt the most. Conservative donations were already predominantly grassroots, so there was very little change. That's the reason why CPC fundraising is so far ahead of the Liberals.

[Battletoads]

If theres an election I pray for another minority. None of the current 'leaders' deserve a free hand.

[no1ninja]

I'm not sure why you think it's funny. When the rules were changed to disallow corporate donations to political parties, it's the Liberals who were hurt the most. Conservative donations were already predominantly grassroots, so there was very little change. That's the reason why CPC fundraising is so far ahead of the Liberals.

What you say is correct, but fundraising and propensity to do what is best for the corporate sector has always been a conservative trait.

I am from Ontario, so I remember such great conservatives like Mike Harris, who tried to sell as many public assets to their crony buddies as they could, even when the public was against it. The 407 for instance got leased at 3.1 Billion for 99 years. The tax payer paid close to 100 Billion for that land. We also signed a clause that prohibits us from building a competing highway during that lease. Ontario Hydro was another company that was heavily leverage by the tax payer and sold for pennies on the dollar. Skydome anyone? Built for 600million, large share of it tax money, and sold to Rogers for 25 million.

It's funny, Conservatives have no problems selling utilities and roads, but for some reason no one wants to buy Canada Post. Liberals are at least about country building, not corporation building.

How is Mike Harris doing anyway? Didn't he land a cushy corporate chair? for 600K a year? I always wonder why such great minds go into politics for, when they can make such outrageous sums in the private sector at the ripe age of 64? (Economic slow down? ...not for some.)

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/611494

Edited March 12, 2011 by no1ninja

[Bryan]

You won't find any love for Mike Harris from me.

[bloodyminded]

Conservative donations were already predominantly grassroots,

Astroturf is not grass.

[GWiz]

Astroturf is not grass.

Does that mean that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it might be Harper and not a duck?

[segnosaur]

...I really hope the CPC looses the government, beacuse they arn't responsible with it.

Did you ever consider that the reason they don't seem "responsible" is because they have a minority government, and as such have to alter their policies in order to avoid confidence votes?

The NDP does deserve to gain a few seats, they do a good job at voicing a minority voice in Canada.

Why exactly does "voicing a minority" earn them the right to earn seats? I thought parties earned seats by having policies certain voters agreed with.

Although It isn't a high likely hood of a total sweep of a majority of the provinces it is equivlenet to giving a madman a super majority. I don't think Canada has seen something quite like it before at this level...

Ummm.... "madman"? Did you ever think that such rhetoric leads to a demise of proper political discourse?

Really... there are valid reasons for voting against the conservatives. But applying labels like "madman" and insinuating that "when elected really bad things will happen" is not really that valuable. Here's a suggestion... why don't you try concentrating on individual policies the party has?

(And for the record, I also disagree with conservative supporters who likewise engage in childish insinuations rather than dealing with issues.)

...Mulrooney gave a show with selling out the economic independence of Canada...

I see... You do realize that while Mulrooney negotiated NAFTA (a trade deal that has seen Canada's GDP and trade balance remain strong), it was Chretien who was in power when the deal came into effect.

- but Harper with a Majority would be poised to sell out the legal independence (military and police) - something that is already in the works.

Please point to any proof that you might have of this (party web site, official statement by the party, etc.) Otherwise, it is nothing but pointless rumourmongering.

THey spend big- and this is struggling to get budgets through...

Yup, they have been spending big. But then, much of the spending was stimulus spending that was pushed for by the Liberals/NDP.

We have "cutters" - meaning they will cut the public service, sell off anything not nailed down...

So, you have problem with "big spending", yet you also have problems with "cutting". Care to make up your mind?

...and spend money on war

So, are you in favor of disbanding all of our military?

You do realize that sometimes equipment needs to be replaced, don't you?

It will be interesting to see if Canadians support that image for Canada - pro zionist, hawkish (picking fights - potentially earning radical enemies and making Canada an actual attack target risk)

In 2002, bin Laden released a tape where he specifically mentioned Canada as a 'target'. And Chretien was the leader at the time. (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2455845.stm) Heck, even before 9/11 that CSIS suggested al Quaeda was using Canada as a launch pad for terrorist attacks. (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/793178.stm). So Canada was a 'target' long before Harper got into power.

Of course, I could point out that there may be times when the 'moral' thing to do is to take a stand to help others, even if it does make you a target.

...this of course would require Canada to hyper secure Canada stripping away evven more rights...

Every party has plans/policies that run contrary to our rights/freedoms in some way.

You know they are zionist that way in that they will try to get even for all the taxes for social programs for the poor.

Ummm.. how does support for Israel have anything to do with taxes/social programs?