Here we go again...Tory attacks ads.

[WWWTT]

There's no limit on how much can be spent between elections, to my knowledge, and I've heard no party advocate for there to be a limit.

Yes I will not contest you on this.

However it is my belief that there should be.Just my opinion.

WWWTT

[Newfoundlander]

Yes I will not contest you on this.

However it is my belief that there should be.Just my opinion.

WWWTT

I don't necessarily disagree with you but it'd be very difficult to do.

[Newfoundlander]

Interesting to note that possible leadership candidate Mark Holland sees no reason why the party should spend money defending the INTERIM leader of the party against these attack ads.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/21/liberals-ponder-whether-rae-worth-defending

[WWWTT]

Interesting to note that possible leadership candidate Mark Holland sees no reason why the party should spend money defending the INTERIM leader of the party against these attack ads.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/21/liberals-ponder-whether-rae-worth-defending

Yep this is why I think its funny when some people think the liberals will be the official oppostion again next election(or the next 15years).

They are still divided and fighting amongst themselves just as much now as ever!

WWWTT

[Newfoundlander]

Yep this is why I think its funny when some people think the liberals will be the official oppostion again next election(or the next 15years).

They are still divided and fighting amongst themselves just as much now as ever!

WWWTT

How are they fighting? They disagree over protecting the interim leader but I don't see how that's fighting. I guess we could also say the NDP will fall apart and not be the official opposition for long because they are fighting, couldn't we?

[cybercoma]

It's a valid debate. The party has limited funding, especially since they lost so many seats. Defending the interim leader would be a smart idea if he becomes the permanent leader, but certainly a waste of money if he doesn't. They should just release attack ads on Tories instead.

[WWWTT]

How are they fighting? They disagree over protecting the interim leader but I don't see how that's fighting. I guess we could also say the NDP will fall apart and not be the official opposition for long because they are fighting, couldn't we?

Not true!

First the NDP are going thrue a leadership race and heated debates are the norm(I actually encourage it!)

And the NDP does not have the history to support this claim.

However the liberals do!

Aswell this guy making the claims to not defend Rae(his name eludes me and the site you provided takes too long to click up) is trying to let the conservatives smear Rae to clear the path for his own leadership agenda.This pretty much falls in line with the liberal historical in fighting.

WWWTT

[Bryan]

the conservatives have only bein around since 2003/2004 and were elected to a minority government in 2006.Can you provide links stating the lowest unemployment rates in Canadian history falling within this time frame?

I was responding to the post previous to mine that contained the link. Here it is again:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate

The lowest unemployment rate we've ever had was in 2007. No matter how you crunch the numbers, things were far worse at several points in the 80's and 90's. Not only are we not at record highs right now, we are well below the historical average.

[CPCFTW]

Factually incorrect statements.

Topaz clearly stated "the number of unemployed"!

This is not mathematically the same as the unemployment rate.The unemployment rate is always listed as a %(percentage).Wereas the number of unemployed is listed as a numerical value or number.

No he clearly didn't. I already quoted him and he said "most unemployment". Check again. More lying from the left!

What relevance does the "the number of unemployed" even have? You'd have to quite ignorant to even mention that. Topaz said "most unemployment", which can only be interpreted as "highest unemployment rate" unless you are completely ignorant of economics.

Edited March 22, 2012 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

Where did he say that, exactly?

Pages 1-4 of this thread are all about that?

They constantly run ads against the other parties. It's ridiculous and needs to stop. Campaign ads should only be run from the time an election is called until the day before an eletion. I don't need to be bombarded with any party's propaganda at any other time of the election cycle.

[Newfoundlander]

Not true!

First the NDP are going thrue a leadership race and heated debates are the norm(I actually encourage it!)

And the NDP does not have the history to support this claim.

However the liberals do!

Aswell this guy making the claims to not defend Rae(his name eludes me and the site you provided takes too long to click up) is trying to let the conservatives smear Rae to clear the path for his own leadership agenda.This pretty much falls in line with the liberal historical in fighting.

WWWTT

Your party just had a former leader come out and attack the frontrunner in the leadership campaign. You're a completely blind partisan if you consider it fighting for Holland to say the Liberals should not spend money on defending Rae's term as the NDP premier of Ontario but it's not fighting when Broadbent blasts Mulcair for not being a real New Democrat.

[WWWTT]

I think what Topaz might have gotten mixed up is that the Conservatives presided over the LOWEST unemployment rate in our history.

This is what you wrote right?

The site you provided only goes back to 1974 so it does not cover all of Canadas history.

Aswell I recall seeing a stat that some time in the 50's the unemployment rate was around only 5%(but I can not find it now unfortunetly)

In adition some of these stats are somewhat misleading,back in the 50's many women were stay at home moms(a legitamit occupation!)but was that fact taken into account when compulating?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

No he clearly didn't. I already quoted him and he said "most unemployment". Check again. More lying from the left!

What relevance does the "the number of unemployed" even have? You'd have to quite ignorant to even mention that. Topaz said "most unemployment", which can only be interpreted as "highest unemployment rate" unless you are completely ignorant of economics.

Yes in comment #54 by Topaz he states the most unemployment.What do you think he meant by that?The most unemployment rate or the most uneployed?

I interpreted it as the most unemployed.I was not lying!

By the way the word "most" is a quantitive adjective/adverb.

WWWTT

[CPCFTW]

Yes in comment #54 by Topaz he states the most unemployment.What do you think he meant by that?The most unemployment rate or the most uneployed?

I interpreted it as the most unemployed.I was not lying!

By the way the word "most" is a quantitive adjective/adverb.

WWWTT

As I mentioned, "most unemployment" can only be interpreted as highest unemployment rate unless you are ignorant of economics. The number of unemployed is an irrelevant figure and thus cannot be considered a reasonable interpretation.

You were lying as you attributed a quote to Topaz which he did not use.

Topaz clearly stated "the number of unemployed"!

That's a lie.

By the way, a rate is a quantitative measurement.

Edited March 22, 2012 by CPCFTW

[WWWTT]

Your party just had a former leader come out and attack the frontrunner in the leadership campaign. You're a completely blind partisan if you consider it fighting for Holland to say the Liberals should not spend money on defending Rae's term as the NDP premier of Ontario but it's not fighting when Broadbent blasts Mulcair for not being a real New Democrat.

When the leader of the NDP is chosen I will stand 100% for him/her and continue to contribute to the party.

Keep in mind that the the NDP are going through a leadership race wich you are giving no value.The liberals are not in the same position.

There is a difference between a good scrapy spar within the party fold vs allowing a rival political party to run scathing attack adds against your interm leader without being countered.

Let me put it this way,if the conservatives tried to pull the same stunt against the NDP,I guarantee the NDP would unanimously counter.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

By the way, a rate is a quantitative measurement.

No its not!

Rate is defined as a pecentage.

However a rate can be used to calculate a numerical sum but stand alone it is a percentage.ex. unemployment rate is 10%,number of people seeking employment/in the job market is 10,therefore 1 person is unemployed.10 is the rate and 1 is the quantity of unemployed out of the quantity of 10 in the job market.

WWWTT

[CPCFTW]

No its not!

Rate is defined as a pecentage.

However a rate can be used to calculate a numerical sum but stand alone it is a percentage.ex. unemployment rate is 10%,number of people seeking employment/in the job market is 10,therefore 1 person is unemployed.10 is the rate and 1 is the quantity of unemployed out of the quantity of 10 in the job market.

WWWTT

A rate is a quantitative measurement. It's a fact. I can't believe I actually have to argue this.

10% = 0.1 = a number

A percentage is just a standardized way of numerically expressing a number as a fraction of 100.

Someone hasn't finished grade 8 math I see.

Perhaps this will help you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=quantitative+vs+qualitative

Edited March 22, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Newfoundlander]

When the leader of the NDP is chosen I will stand 100% for him/her and continue to contribute to the party.

Keep in mind that the the NDP are going through a leadership race wich you are giving no value.The liberals are not in the same position.

There is a difference between a good scrapy spar within the party fold vs allowing a rival political party to run scathing attack adds against your interm leader without being countered.

Let me put it this way,if the conservatives tried to pull the same stunt against the NDP,I guarantee the NDP would unanimously counter.

WWWTT

You might stand behind the leader 100% but it doesn't sound like Ed Broadbent will. You might think Broadbent was just being "scrappy" but he criticized Mulcair for wanting to bring the party to the centre, criticized his personality, casting him as someone who could not work with others which was the reason why not many senior members of the party were supporting him.

The Liberals are going through a leadership process, the official campaign might not have started but the party is looking for a leader. Are you saying you would have agreed to the NDP spending millions of dollars defending Nycole Turmel if attack ads had been released on her, even though you knew she would only be leader for a few months?

[WLDB]

You might stand behind the leader 100% but it doesn't sound like Ed Broadbent will. You might think Broadbent was just being "scrappy" but he criticized Mulcair for wanting to bring the party to the centre, criticized his personality, casting him as someone who could not work with others which was the reason why not many senior members of the party were supporting him.

Indeed I'm curious to see what will happen if Mulcair wins. Perhaps he takes the party to the centre, will that lead to the party splitting with the left forming a new party? Its sort of happened before with the Waffle in the 70s. Then in 2015 there would be two large centrist parties competing for the same votes. It'll be interesting. Or, would Mulcair stay with the NDP if Topp or another left leaning candidate won? We'll see.

[cybercoma]

Mulcair can't take the party anywhere. only the delegates voting from the floor can take the party somewhere.

[WLDB]

Mulcair can't take the party anywhere. only the delegates voting from the floor can take the party somewhere.

The leader isnt a figurehead. They get a fair bit of power over the parties.

[WWWTT]

A rate is a quantitative measurement. It's a fact. I can't believe I actually have to argue this.

10% = 0.1 = a number

A percentage is just a standardized way of numerically expressing a number as a fraction of 100.

Someone hasn't finished grade 8 math I see.

Perhaps this will help you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=quantitative+vs+qualitative

Ok then if Canadas unemployment rate is %7.4,then how many Canadians are unemployed?

And then lets compare that to say 20 years ago,if the unemployment rate was even higher at say %12(by the way these are somewhat acurate examples of the unemployment rate).

By just looking at these numbers you do not know exactly how many Canadians are unemployed do you?

To do this you need to know the quantity of people in Canada that are currently in the job market to determine the quantity of people who are unemployed.

I think you are getting confused because the quantity of the rate is being numericly expressed.Say the unemployment rate is at 7%The numerical value or quantity of the rate is expressed with the number 7(or as 0.07 when calculating).This is not the same as the quantity of the unemployed which is expressed as a number and never as a percentage.

If you are under the impression that the actual quantity of the unemployed can be accurately described soley as a percentage,then I hope you do not work for revenue Canada!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=quantitative+vs+qualitative

What is this?

What does quality have anything to do with determining the number of unemployed in Canada without the number of people that are currently in the job market or essentialy without sufficient data???!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

You might stand behind the leader 100% but it doesn't sound like Ed Broadbent will. You might think Broadbent was just being "scrappy" but he criticized Mulcair for wanting to bring the party to the centre, criticized his personality, casting him as someone who could not work with others which was the reason why not many senior members of the party were supporting him.

The Liberals are going through a leadership process, the official campaign might not have started but the party is looking for a leader. Are you saying you would have agreed to the NDP spending millions of dollars defending Nycole Turmel if attack ads had been released on her, even though you knew she would only be leader for a few months?

First off,Mulcair as of this day is NOT the leader,he is the frontrunner in the leadership race but not the leader!

Secondly Ed Broadbent is NOT in the leadership race,nor an MP.

These are two distinctions the NDP have from the liberals concerning this scenario.

This second fact is important because after the leader is chosen,Ed can easily step away.

I emphasize this by pointing out that Pat Martin has clearly bein asked whom he supports in the leadership race.And I distinctly heard him on the CTV program "Question Period" that he will not say because he wishes to remain nuetral(or something like that).

And as far as the conservatives attacking Turmel goes,absolutely agree that a counter attack would have bein in order!

But for some reason the conservatives did not do this.Was it because they have no money?Turmel has bein compared to Stephen Dion when she speaks English wouldn't this be enough to make the conservatives salivate at the opportunity to attack an opponent?

Maybe they considered this but realized the risk and decided to play it safe and just attack Rae?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Indeed I'm curious to see what will happen if Mulcair wins. Perhaps he takes the party to the centre, will that lead to the party splitting with the left forming a new party? Its sort of happened before with the Waffle in the 70s. Then in 2015 there would be two large centrist parties competing for the same votes. It'll be interesting. Or, would Mulcair stay with the NDP if Topp or another left leaning candidate won? We'll see.

You are engaging in pure speculation and fantasy!

If Mulcair won he can not take control of the direction of NDP policy!He can influence it if he wishes,aswell he can be a good spokesperson/figurehead/face for the NDP.But never dictate policy.

If Mulcair lost the leadership he would never leave because the NDP are on the verge of forming government and he would be right up there with a high profile cabinet position!He would have never joined the NDP in the first place if he ever believed that the NDP would never have some signifigant success!

And as far as where the liberals stand on the political spectrum?If I was a conservative I would be more worried about the liberals coming closer to the right!Obviously the SS liberal has picked up anchor and is sailing further to the right,they clearly have sailed out of the left and are not looking back.

WWWTT