jacee Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Now you're making stuff up to try and hide the fact that you make stuff up.Really? And you reread the original context to verify that personal attack? . Edited January 5, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Actually if I remember correctly wasn't it under 25% of eligible voters? You remember wrong (surprise). The stats were posted. Take a look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 "And how could you expect Harper to be more authoritarian when he was only elected with support of 25% of the population?" So, huge disparity in what you are saying. Again, he received 39.6% of the vote. It's a fact. I posted the fact for you. As usual, left wing, uh, enthusiasts will deny facts when presented. Harper's 39.6% only represented 25 % of eligible voters. Why are you and Kis having such difficulty with the math? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) You remember wrong (surprise). The stats were posted. Take a look. Looks like I remember right, which shouldn't surprise you by now. Edited January 5, 2015 by PrimeNumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Actual voters and eligible voters are two completely different things.. it's not a hard concept really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 "Harper's 39.6% only represented 25 % of eligible voters" Harper's 39.6% represent the number of ppl who voted. To claim he only got 25% of eligible voters is ridiculous. You are trying to stake a claim to all eligible voters who didn't vote. Your arguement is patently ridiculous. If you extrapolate your reasoning, what % did the Libs and NDP get? Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Actual voters and eligible voters are two completely different things.. it's not a hard concept really. You show no proof. You make no sense. Actual voters and eligible voters are two different things. I'm astounded you grasped that concept. See my last post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Actually if I remember correctly wasn't it under 25% of eligible voters? You might be right. 25% was close enough for me to get the point across that Harper can't be as "authoritarian" as some hardliners would like because once elected, he answers to 100% of us, not just the 25% of us who voted for the CPC. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) But that has not resulted in insecurity for our country, in any significant way. Or do you feel we are in danger of invasion soon?Not in the least. I'm more worried about people from half way around the world getting pissed off at us for joining their antagonists and attacking us. The reason that concerns me is that it leads to our government freaking out and coming at us with goofy things like massive surveillance schemes and more power for police. That makes me feel more insecure not less.Note that our involvement in both world wars had little to do with the US and much to do with a call to arms from a different ally.Another interfering super-rogue. If you've seen one you've seen them all. Also note that WW1/2 have bugger all to do with what we're taking about unless you include the fact we're still resolving unfinished business from those stupid wars. Huh? Joining the fight with allies is not an option, unless you are also willing to have an ally not join a fight you are more directly involved with. Or do you think an aligned country with treaties and alliances (I'm talking about Canada in case you hadn't guessed) can pick and choose and expect your allies not to do that when you are in need? No, you cannot have it both ways. We're a free country and we can do whatever the hell we want. Note we also have lots of uranium. Edited January 5, 2015 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 "Harper's 39.6% only represented 25 % of eligible voters" Harper's 39.6% represent the number of ppl who voted. To claim he only got 25% of eligible voters is ridiculous. You are trying to stake a claim to all eligible voters who didn't vote. Your arguement is patently ridiculous. If you extrapolate your reasoning, what % did the Libs and NDP get? Exactly You have entirely missed the point of the discussion. As PM, Harper is accountable to all Canadians, not just those who voted for the CPC. What a bunch of foolish quibbling. But we know now who the cpc political operatives are here. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 You show no proof. You make no sense. Actual voters and eligible voters are two different things. I'm astounded you grasped that concept. See my last post. Regardless of if those voters had voted conservative it is still less than 25% of eligible voters. Not sure what you don't understand about that. No one is arguing that the Conservatives did not garner 39.6% of the votes of those whom voted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Folks, there have been a lot of personal attacks and trolling today. Let's stick to the topic at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Deleted Edited January 5, 2015 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 It was most likely removed because it violated forum rules. I never saw this. Please quote it for me. What does Sun news have to do with anything? I think you are the one who is stuck in left field. It violated someone's opinion of what my views should be. And I won't quote what I said. It doesn't meet the standards of "adding to the discussion". You know very well any quote of the Sun is greeted with ridicule by the left. My statement stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Folks, there have been a lot of personal attacks and trolling today. Let's stick to the topic at hand.All sorts of slandering going on too I notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 You know very well any quote of the Sun is greeted with ridicule by the left. My statement stands. Why don't you just post the quote and let people discuss it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 It violated someone's opinion of what my views should be. And I won't quote what I said. It doesn't meet the standards of "adding to the discussion". You know very well any quote of the Sun is greeted with ridicule by the left. My statement stands. Another PM for you. Check both our PM threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Really? And you reread the original context to verify that personal attack? . There was no context - period. You responded directly to me saying that your own reference to the 25% "support of the population" was irrelevant. Building on your now "irrelevant" irrelevance by throwing out the motherhood statement that Harper is accountable to ALL Canadians is just a senseless platitude. Of COURSE our Prime Minister - no matter who they may be - governs for all Canadians - but it's already been said - you can't please all of the people all of the time......and as can be seen on this forum, there are partisans like yourself who will never be pleased. As for personal attacks - not even close.....don't make things up - and you won't have to embarrass yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Harper the control freak, sounds a lot like chretien and even trudeau with what he has done so far. Harper the war monger, he has sent 12 or so planes with personal and some SFs, compared to chretien sending us to Afghanistan and martin ratcheting it up even more. The dictator, that sound s a lot more like trudeau himself again. So funny . He wanted us to fight with Bush in Iraq. You do remember that, eh? The paradox about Harper has been explained by Wells. He loves power more than policy. So all that Reform talk of openness and accountability has been binned and MPs now describe themselves as performing seals who might as well go home after the election. In Iraq we have six fighters trying to do their best. Canada's military spending is a national embarrassment. You'd think the leader of such a country would stay pretty quiet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Harper the control freak, sounds a lot like chretien and even trudeau with what he has done so far. Harper the war monger, he has sent 12 or so planes with personal and some SFs, compared to chretien sending us to Afghanistan and martin ratcheting it up even more. The dictator, that sound s a lot more like trudeau himself again. So funny . He wanted us to fight with Bush in Iraq. You do remember that, eh? The paradox about Harper has been explained by Wells. He loves power more than policy. So all that Reform talk of openness and accountability has been binned and MPs now describe themselves as performing seals who might as well go home after the election. In Iraq we have six fighters trying to do their best. Canada's military spending is a national embarrassment. You'd think the leader of such a country would stay pretty quiet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 He wanted moral support from the government, we had nothing to send after a 30% cut to the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 He wanted us to fight with Bush in Iraq. You do remember that, eh? The paradox about Harper has been explained by Wells. He loves power more than policy. So all that Reform talk of openness and accountability has been binned and MPs now describe themselves as performing seals who might as well go home after the election. In Iraq we have six fighters trying to do their best. Canada's military spending is a national embarrassment. You'd think the leader of such a country would stay pretty quiet. whatever http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/18/liberal-mps-toe-party-line-on-abortion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Spanky , your liberals cut the military by 30%, trying their best to bring it down enough that we could never afford to build it up again. That was a real hidden agenda, to destroy the military. It takes time and money to rebuild and since we are stuck with a incompetent bureaucracy, that can.t handle any big purchase anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Spanky , your liberals cut the military by 30%, trying their best to bring it down enough that we could never afford to build it up again. That was a real hidden agenda, to destroy the military.Why?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Cutting the military was part of slaying the surplus for Chretien/Martin. So was cutting transfer payments to the provinces. Easy peasy, not work involved in either, and it has the bonus of getting many people to believe as late as 2015 that it was 'responsible fiscal management'. 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.