cybercoma Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 If we are to have a functioning democracy, I think that it is good if ordinary pay $20 from their pocket to have the right to vote. Stephen Harper and Barack Obama are capable of connecting to ordinary people and getting them to go online and give $20 or $50 dollars. Are you talking about making voters pay $20-50 to vote in a federal election? If so, maybe a few years down the line we could require people to be land-holders to vote. I think it's a terrible idea and it disenfranchises those that need their voices heard most. Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 There is absolutely something wrong with that. I am completely opposed to any party running a campaign before elections are called. It disgusts me when I'm watching television and an ad comes on that has no other purpose but to slam an opposition party when there isn't even an election in sight. It's a tasteless attempt (and ask Ignatieff, an effective one) at thought-control. We shouldn't stand for propaganda campaigns against opposition parties by the government, regardless of who is in power. Let's start by banning sensationalized liberal media news stories like the one about Harper watching a hockey game with his family while stealing $10,000/hr from poor hungry autistic children. What do you care what parties do with the money they solicit from their supporters? There is always a disclaimer about who paid for the advertisement anyway. I take it you believe people are too stupid to exercise their judgement when watching party ads so only the "unbiased" media should be able to educate/inform us about politics? Quote
Molly Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) I take it you believe people are too stupid to exercise their judgement when watching party ads so only the "unbiased" media should be able to educate/inform us about politics? Speaking of unbiassed media, I was really amused this a.m. to see that the Regina Leader Post placed the story headlined "Parliamentarians in dark over summit costs: AG" on page 6 of the second section, the only news story inserted into a couple of pages of ads separating the 'Arts and Life' and 'Television' sections, the only unpaid print separating a commentary about a film about Sarah Ferguson, and an article titled, "Food revolution backwith boost". You simply can not bury 'em any deeper. That said, the CPC is welcome to raisefunds and spend 'em when and how they see fit-- but the rest of us are also free to be disgusted that they'd employ such a wild-eyed, false and paranoid pony-whipping to do it; and we are also free to laugh at the dufusses who would buy into it. Edited June 11, 2011 by Molly Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
CPCFTW Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 That said, the CPC is welcome to raisefunds and spend 'em when and how they see fit-- but the rest of us are also free to be disgusted that they'd employ such a wild-eyed, false and paranoid pony-whipping to do it; and we are also free to laugh at the dufusses who would buy into it. As we are free to laugh at the 'dufusses' who buy into articles lamenting Harper taking advantage of the taxpayer by going to a hockey game. Quote
capricorn Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 It disgusts me when I'm watching television and an ad comes on that has no other purpose but to slam an opposition party when there isn't even an election in sight. What disgusts me is watching QP in the House and the opposition slams the government for no other reason than a few sound bites they hope will make headlines. And this happens whether or not an election is imminent. Yet, I accept the posturing because political parties will use any vehicle at their disposal to advance their standing with voters. It's a tasteless attempt (and ask Ignatieff, an effective one) at thought-control. Not all Canadians are so clueless they can't detect when they are being manipulated. We shouldn't stand for propaganda campaigns against opposition parties by the government, regardless of who is in power. There's something you can do about it. Join DePape's movement by providing a donation to her cause and to the cause of her sponsors. Her website, which went up in a flash, makes it easy to donate. http://www.stopharperfund.ca/ Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
bloodyminded Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 There is absolutely something wrong with that. I am completely opposed to any party running a campaign before elections are called. It disgusts me when I'm watching television and an ad comes on that has no other purpose but to slam an opposition party when there isn't even an election in sight. It's a tasteless attempt (and ask Ignatieff, an effective one) at thought-control. We shouldn't stand for propaganda campaigns against opposition parties by the government, regardless of who is in power. Actually, I agree. For the second time in as many days, I feel inclined to concede a mistake. (I'm clearly not on a roll.) In my defense, it was only an ill-conceived attempt to avoid the usual "But the liberals do it too!" remark which as is predictable as my heartburn problem, and slightly more objectionable. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
RNG Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 Actually, I agree. For the second time in as many days, I feel inclined to concede a mistake. (I'm clearly not on a roll.) In my defense, it was only an ill-conceived attempt to avoid the usual "But the liberals do it too!" remark which as is predictable as my heartburn problem, and slightly more objectionable. A variation of the "B-b-b-b-ut Bush!" argument on US forums. But I still wonder if the partisans were as vocal about Cretien as they are here. And are the Harper defenders going to also defend the next non CPC guy? What are the odds, in your opinion? Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
cybercoma Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 A variation of the "B-b-b-b-ut Bush!" argument on US forums. But I still wonder if the partisans were as vocal about Cretien as they are here. And are the Harper defenders going to also defend the next non CPC guy? What are the odds, in your opinion? You know, all this crap about "but were they as vocal about Chretien" is only marginally less stupid than saying, "but were they as vocal about Mulroney". Chretien's time as PM came to an end almost 10 years ago. Personally, I found much of what he did objectionable, which is why I voted for Alliance, Reform and the CPC. Unfortunately, I find what Stephen Harper is doing to be just as objectionable. It doesn't matter though. The point is a red-herring. Even if one thinks Harper is wrong and Chretien was not, that doesn't mean that Chretien wasn't wrong and it doesn't mean that Harper is right in what he's doing. One has no bearing on the other. You're right, however. Some people seem to favour the person they support doing something, but not vice versa. I can rest happy knowing that I was against the Liberals when these things pertained to them and I'm against the Conservatives now as they do it. Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 You know, all this crap about "but were they as vocal about Chretien" is only marginally less stupid than saying, "but were they as vocal about Mulroney". Chretien's time as PM came to an end almost 10 years ago. Personally, I found much of what he did objectionable, which is why I voted for Alliance, Reform and the CPC. Unfortunately, I find what Stephen Harper is doing to be just as objectionable. It doesn't matter though. The point is a red-herring. Even if one thinks Harper is wrong and Chretien was not, that doesn't mean that Chretien wasn't wrong and it doesn't mean that Harper is right in what he's doing. One has no bearing on the other. You're right, however. Some people seem to favour the person they support doing something, but not vice versa. I can rest happy knowing that I was against the Liberals when these things pertained to them and I'm against the Conservatives now as they do it. Maybe you just like to be angry and object to everything possible. You should watch the south park episode "T.M.I." for some insight into why you may do this. Quote
RNG Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 Maybe you just like to be angry and object to everything possible. You should watch the south park episode "T.M.I." for some insight into why you may do this. Basically, CPCFTW, I have a similar philosophy to yours. But come on. The past three elections, though I voted conservative (note the small c) I had to hold my nose to do it. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
CPCFTW Posted June 11, 2011 Report Posted June 11, 2011 Basically, CPCFTW, I have a similar philosophy to yours. But come on. The past three elections, though I voted conservative (note the small c) I had to hold my nose to do it. I'll give Harper the benefit of the doubt until he has a majority government. We'll see what happens now, but in 4 years I may have to hold my nose too. Quote
bloodyminded Posted June 12, 2011 Report Posted June 12, 2011 A variation of the "B-b-b-b-ut Bush!" argument on US forums. But I still wonder if the partisans were as vocal about Cretien as they are here. You're not aware of a slight contradiction here? Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
RNG Posted June 12, 2011 Report Posted June 12, 2011 You're not aware of a slight contradiction here? No. I'm not saying either rabid cons or rabid libs are better or worse than the other. Both just as bad. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
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.