I'll be voting Conservative...

[69cat]

Probably because it's trivial. She wrote some tweets with profanity and slang four years ago. Wow.

Well, a Liberal candidate in Alberta stepped down two weeks ago for similar - offensive social media posts four years ago. Of more interest is Tom Mulcair denying any knowledge of the Swampy discussion when media had it in play for two days already. The old "how could he not know and have the balls to outright lie about it" theme.

I think the issue is how well candidates are screened. The Liberals took theirs seriously, the Conservatives are taken seriously, and the NDP? Uh, meh. Or your "wow".

Edited September 16, 2015 by 69cat

[SpankyMcFarland]

Well, a Liberal candidate in Alberta stepped down two weeks ago for similar - offensive social media posts four years ago. Of more interest is Tom Mulcair denying any knowledge of the Swampy discussion when media had it in play for two days already. The old "how could he not know and have the balls to outright lie about it" theme.

I think the issue is how well candidates are screened. The Liberals took theirs seriously, the Conservatives are taken seriously, and the NDP? Uh, meh. Or your "wow".

But does this mean that any aspiring politician has to avoid electronic media completely or lie through his teeth for years before he runs for office? You're going to get into heated discussions online if you care as much as these guys do about the questions of the day. We have all said foolish things, and nowadays utterances of all sorts are recorded.

[SpankyMcFarland]

More details on likejackingate:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-like-jacking-facebook-1.3229622

[The_Squid]

More details on likejackingate:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-like-jacking-facebook-1.3229622

Is hacking people's accounts to produce "likes" legal?

I guess it will take an investigation by Elections Canada and/or the RCMP to sort this out. Another underhanded scheme by the Conservative Party. It certainly seems fraudulent, if not by the legal definition...

[ToadBrother]

Is hacking people's accounts to produce "likes" legal?

I guess it will take an investigation by Elections Canada and/or the RCMP to sort this out. Another underhanded scheme by the Conservative Party. It certainly seems fraudulent, if not by the legal definition...

Whether it's legal or not, you would have to tie it directly to the Conservatives. I have a feeling that might prove rather difficult. In an age of Canadian PACs, I suspect we'll see the introduction of American-style campaign tactics, where the campaigns go "Why, we would never do such a thing", as "The Canadian Citizens' Action Committee for Grand Wazooing" spends gazillions of grey dollars on character assassinations of opponents, social networking scams, and various forms of hyperbolic infamy.

[69cat]

Spanky, i would say there is a limit to what should be considered. Personally, i would think anything a year earlier is relevant, four years earlier i would likely take a pass on. The Liberals do feel differently however. The guy peeing in a cup is just stupid, but i dont know the time line on that, but maybe that should not have a timeline? But then if peeing in a cup is timeless then shooting your mouth off like a low life dirt bag should be timeless too?

In the defence of the Conservatives, how do you screen for a guy peeing in a cup? In regards to people who spout off as they have on social media that is easier to find, does it make a difference?

I agree that we all have done stupid things and each individual voter will judge those actions in their own way. My only concern is the left biased media coverage where a Liberal is found to be worthy if stepping down, a NDP not and neither gets coverage in mainstream media for the voter to judge, but the Conservatives get two days of national media. Why not let the voter judge and not the media?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Spanky, i would say there is a limit to what should be considered. Personally, i would think anything a year earlier is relevant, four years earlier i would likely take a pass on. The Liberals do feel differently however. The guy peeing in a cup is just stupid, but i dont know the time line on that, but maybe that should not have a timeline? But then if peeing in a cup is timeless then shooting your mouth off like a low life dirt bag should be timeless too?

In the defence of the Conservatives, how do you screen for a guy peeing in a cup? In regards to people who spout off as they have on social media that is easier to find, does it make a difference?

I agree that we all have done stupid things and each individual voter will judge those actions in their own way. My only concern is the left biased media coverage where a Liberal is found to be worthy if stepping down, a NDP not and neither gets coverage in mainstream media for the voter to judge, but the Conservatives get two days of national media. Why not let the voter judge and not the media?

Yeah, there can be no statute of limitations on mug shots for anybody over five. That was Rob Ford-like news all over the world. But on the other stuff, I think Jonathan Kay is right when he says that this is a generational thing and the younger people won't be so bothered by raunchy, off-colour or insulting written remarks as older voters might be. As a geezer myself, I'm more used to hearing this stuff from my peers than reading it. Edited September 16, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

One interesting thing. There are a LOT of Conservative supporters defending the party in the comments section of the CBC report.

[G Huxley]

How did Conservative foreign policy create refugees from Libya? Are you saying if we hadn't joined in with our allies and dropped a few bombs Libya would be a paradise now with no refugees?

Pretty obvious isn't it? The Conservatives were among those who sought to destroy the government of the country.

Previously Italy paid the Libyan government to keep immigrants from coming over in boats. Once the government was gone and the country was into anarchy and destruction refugees came fleeing over in droves. Same situation in Iraq/Syria, which were also torn apart by the neocons.

[G Huxley]

"The existence of ISIS and Al Qaeda are both owed to conservative neoconservative policies."

Evidence? Citation?

Try reading a book one day.

Re: AQ read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars. Bill Casey who was the head of the CIA was a Catholic Knight of Malta who dreamed of uniting Christian and Muslim fundamentalists in a global crusade against the atheistic commies. In order to fulfill this vision he promoted and heavily armed fundamentalist Islamists on overseas jihad against the Soviets. Through this movement Al Qaeda came to Afghanistan and Bin Laden gained his messianic reputation amongst Islamic fanatics.

Re: ISIS. ISIS came about in Iraq as a direct result of the US invasion and occupation of that country. When NATO armed the Syrian opposition it destabilized Syria, ISIS taking advantage of the situation flooded into Syria and greatly expanded. Then when they took Mosul they captured whole divisions of US made weaponry turning themselves into a terrorist caliphate covering much of the Middle East.

The Neoconservatives are monsters.

Edited September 16, 2015 by G Huxley

[Canada_First]

So being fiscally responsible makes one a monster. Interesting.

[PrimeNumber]

My grass keeps growing, along with the occasional weed. But it gets cut every week, and the lawn gets treated so it's nice and tidy.

It's a good thing your lawn doesn't cover the entire earth. You could eek out your existence trimming it till you croak then your kids could take over but you'd still never cut it all.

[Evening Star]

Well, a Liberal candidate in Alberta stepped down two weeks ago for similar - offensive social media posts four years ago. Of more interest is Tom Mulcair denying any knowledge of the Swampy discussion when media had it in play for two days already. The old "how could he not know and have the balls to outright lie about it" theme.

I think the issue is how well candidates are screened. The Liberals took theirs seriously, the Conservatives are taken seriously, and the NDP? Uh, meh. Or your "wow".

Yeah, I was pretty disappointed that Ala Buzreba stepped down, especially considering that she was 17 when she sent those tweets. I think it is to the NDP's credit that they have not behaved in the same way.

This is how I feel about this whole business, more or less: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-bozo-eruptions-or-no-let-voters-decide-if-candidates-are-idiots

[69cat]

Found this link regarding rise of ISIS from Al Queda in the Syrian conflict which follows what Huxley is saying.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9319293/syrian-refugees-civil-war

I dont know much about this matter other than it is a mess and it goes back way beyond the Harper government and likely the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Europe drawing the boundaries. So we have dictators that are necessary to maintain order but that type of order requires methods seen as barbaric by the left and that is not tolerable. So liberals cant have dictators ruling with an iron fist so give them democracy at the point of a gun.

Yeah, best is to stay out completely and let the death toll be what it will be but sometimes you have to do what you think is right to keep the death toll down - and so the Harper gov commits on this idea. It would not be humane of Canada to turns it back on the known slaughter would it. Yes, it would be nice if we were not in this position but it did not start with the Harper government either.

[69cat]

Evening star, read the link at it is a valid point that a hole is made when a candidate steps down. My opinion is that i would expect someone who lived many years in the real world to represent me in gov. So i frankly would not want a 21 y/o as my mp. That would, by nature, rule out the idea of youthful or not thought out opinions posted in social media. For example, if my mp is 40 y/o and posts are found from 5 years ago that demonstrate a immature nature then i think he should be held accountable as it demonstrates who is representing me and may be best if a new candidate is put in place. If the mp is 21 y/o maybe it is not acceptable to shrug your shoulders a 'take what you get' in said member either, even if posts were 5 years earlier.

[cybercoma]

Do you think she should have been?

Nope.

[cybercoma]

It's a good thing your lawn doesn't cover the entire earth. You could eek out your existence trimming it till you croak then your kids could take over but you'd still never cut it all.

And the metaphor is crippled by the fact that cutting your grass doesn't make more grass start growing where it wasn't before.

Edited September 16, 2015 by cybercoma

[Bob Macadoo]

And the metaphor is crippled by the fact that cutting your grass doesn't make more grass start growing where it wasn't before.

Well actually...if weeds have grown and you chute them out.....they will grow in unexpected places......like your neighbours lawn....

[PIK]

Yeah, I was pretty disappointed that Ala Buzreba stepped down, especially considering that she was 17 when she sent those tweets. I think it is to the NDP's credit that they have not behaved in the same way.

This is how I feel about this whole business, more or less: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-bozo-eruptions-or-no-let-voters-decide-if-candidates-are-idiots

Those tweets show the hate that women has. And it was pure hate.

[ToadBrother]

Did any of those other groups embrace a religion which contained an entire set of legal and political rules which consider us inferiors and infidels, and which called upon them to destroy us?

Many God-fearing Protestant Anglo-Saxon types certainly thought so. Catholicism was viewed as an alien idolatrous religious system that's ultimately aim was to wipe out Protestantism and reassert the rule of the Pope. The anti-Catholic sentiment may have faded in the UK and to some extent in Canada by the 19th century, but in the US it took a lot longer to fade away, and pockets of anti-Papism can still be found. Much the same rhetoric; alien religious system, dubious loyalties of adherents, claims of a long-term plot to destroy hard-won freedoms.

[Scotty]

What percentage of TFSA holders maxed out their accounts before the increase?

Apparently a lot since two thirds of Canadians oppose rolling back the TFSA limits

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/retirement-rrsps/two-thirds-of-canadians-oppose-rollback-of-tfsa-limit-poll/article26374122/

[Canada_First]

Apparently a lot since two thirds of Canadians oppose rolling back the TFSA limits

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/retirement-rrsps/two-thirds-of-canadians-oppose-rollback-of-tfsa-limit-poll/article26374122/

The left is against anything and everything that doesn't treat everyone exactly the same. No one is allowed to get ahead in a socialist world.

[cybercoma]

Apparently a lot since two thirds of Canadians oppose rolling back the TFSA limits

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/retirement-rrsps/two-thirds-of-canadians-oppose-rollback-of-tfsa-limit-poll/article26374122/

I don't care how many people oppose rolling it back. How many people max it out?

Edited September 16, 2015 by cybercoma

[Canada_First]

I don't care how many people oppose rolling it back. How many people max it out?

Why are opposed a tool that helps people save more of the money?

[hitops]

Many God-fearing Protestant Anglo-Saxon types certainly thought so. Catholicism was viewed as an alien idolatrous religious system that's ultimately aim was to wipe out Protestantism and reassert the rule of the Pope. The anti-Catholic sentiment may have faded in the UK and to some extent in Canada by the 19th century, but in the US it took a lot longer to fade away, and pockets of anti-Papism can still be found. Much the same rhetoric; alien religious system, dubious loyalties of adherents, claims of a long-term plot to destroy hard-won freedoms.

It's a false analogy. Sure you can find people that that hate each and rationalize reasons to kill each other among many religious and non-religious groups on the planet. Stalin for example, overtly anti-religious, is the largest mass murderer in history, possibly rivaled in second place by Mao, also overtly anti-religious. And no shortage of religious groups have wages war and persecution as well.

The question is not about whether humans are capable of holding x, y or z beliefs, and also doing evil. Conclusively, they are. The question is about the core founding beliefs. You raise protestants so use that example. It's difficult to impossible to rationalize that approach from the Jesus teachings. It's quite easy to do so from Mohammed's teachings. There is nothing in Jesus life to use as a precedent for that type of thinking, but plenty in Mohammed's.

The violent 'we are better than you and therefore justified in doing harm to you' is intrinsic to the the Muslim faith, inseparable from it's founder and his teaching. While that exists (which will be forever), there will be Muslims who want to be the real-deal, Mohammed-emulating kind, who will endorse, perform, or at least sympathize with those ideas. Mohammed said unbelievers have lower status, should be ruled by Muslims, and should have to pay Muslims to live with them.

This is the way people coming from that part of the world think. Not like Vietnamese, not like Ukrainians, not like Indians (the large majority non-muslim), not like Philippinos, not like Chinese.

Somalians have been a huge problem in the US, Nigerians and Kenyans have not. What you believe, where you come from matters, and it should matter to us on immigration.