Is it just me or have the Liberals around here fallen silent all of a

[newbie]

Seems like a bunch of conservatives are patting each other on the back about an election nearly in the bag. All the Liberals that seemed to be fighting what they thought was the good fight for their party seem to have disappeared.

Liberals that I know don't stoop to the level of your venom, hence the silence. Enjoy your con lovefest and hatred.

More liberal smear from someone who knows nothing about me.

Comment about quiet liberals and all of a sudden you're full of venom and hate.

Talk about some open-minded people willing to discuss why that is.

"your" was meant to apply to the cons in general that frequent this forum. I don't hate anyone. But please look back over a few posts and you will see the venom from the cons that I speak of.

[scribblet]

Seems like a bunch of conservatives are patting each other on the back about an election nearly in the bag. All the Liberals that seemed to be fighting what they thought was the good fight for their party seem to have disappeared.

Liberals that I know don't stoop to the level of your venom, hence the silence. Enjoy your con lovefest and hatred.

More liberal smear from someone who knows nothing about me.

Comment about quiet liberals and all of a sudden you're full of venom and hate.

Talk about some open-minded people willing to discuss why that is.

"your" was meant to apply to the cons in general that frequent this forum. I don't hate anyone. But please look back over a few posts and you will see the venom from the cons that I speak of.

I beg to differ newbie, I havn't seen any hate or venom much at all, and none from the conservatives. I have however, seen hate and venom from one left wing poster in particular, possibly 2?. The signature of that poster makes the case, and none which adds to reasonable debate or discussion.

[newbie]

[quote name='scriblett' date='Jan 13 2006, 10:37 AM' post='87960

I beg to differ newbie, I havn't seen any hate or venom much at all, and none from the conservatives. I have however, seen hate and venom from one left wing poster in particular, possibly 2?. The signature of that poster makes the case, and none which adds to reasonable debate or discussion.

I won't mention names but check out initials M.B. and a few of the S's. It's there and a search will reveal plenty.

[kimmy]

There is virtually no possibility of a tory majority, btw, which is why I'm wondering where this "M" talk is coming from. The Tories are unlikely to win many, if any seats in Quebec, and they'd need 2/3rds of all the seats in the rest of Canada to hope for a majority - which they're not going to get. The Liberals are still solidly in front in vote rich Toronto, with all those immigrant votes, and still strong out east. They are also still very strong around voter rich Montreal, while Tory support is spread through the province, and so really not of much value.

I think we saw some of the same kind of thinking here, a few weeks before the call of the election. Former forum member "ScottBrison" was enthusiastically trumpetting the latest poll results showing the Liberals at 38%, "majority territory!" he claimed (though, I believe with more exclamation marks...) based on the logic that Chretien had once won a majority with 38% of the vote.

But that ignores the fractured nature of our electoral map and the strange way in which votes are distributed. A widespread generalized support is virtually worthless when stacked up against strongly concentrated regional factors, and that is what we have everywhere in this country. It would be theoretically possible for a party to win the popular vote handily without winning a single seat in parliament. In the Conservatives' case, a fair amount of their rise in popular support has been in Quebec ridings outside of Montreal, and it's likely that the Conservatives won't win a single seat from any of that support. A considerable amount of the Conservatives' gain in the polls has also likely come in the Greater Vancouver Area and "the 905" in ridings that will likely be won by Liberal or NDP candidates regardless.

I think a fair chunk of the Conservatives' gain in the polls could be likened to a hypothetical Liberal rise in Alberta: it doesn't matter if the Liberals poll 30% in Alberta or just 20% ...it's not going to translate into seats. I think Conservatives in Quebec and certain metro areas will face the same fate. The polls are interesting at identifying trends, but as a means of projecting a seat count, they're useless. I don't blame "ScottBrison" for not knowing better, but Pollsters speculating about a majority based on their latest poll don't have an excuse: they ought to know better. I suspect they probably attempt to speculate how their poll will translate into seats to try to impart some significance to their research.

-k

[newbie]

betsy!

You hate the Liberals for the reasons you outline. Valid or not is a question. You love the Conservatives, though?

You love the Conservatives because they are refusing to provide Early Learning opportunites for the children you seem to care for given your choice of business.

You love the Conservatives for their aim to widen the gap between rich and poor in Canada and for their intention to increase the rate of poverty in the country.

You love the Conservatives for their willingness to increase crime rates and to entrench hopelessness in the lives of many children through that "social policy."

You love the Conservatives for their alignment with George Bush in condemning all the worlds' children to a life of despair and misery in a world that is to become increasingly unfit for human habitation: unfit because Harper, like Bush thinks oil companies are more important than people.

You love the Conservatives because they are determined to destroy Canada as a nation and turn it into a latter day Hanseatic League.

You love the Conservatives because - but why go on! There are a hundred reasons for the blinkered to love them.

Betsy must love two of my favourites: how they plan on getting rid of the Kelowna agreement and turning their back on Kyoto.

[betsy]

betsy!

You hate the Liberals for the reasons you outline. Valid or not is a question. You love the Conservatives, though?

You love the Conservatives because they are refusing to provide Early Learning opportunites for the children you seem to care for given your choice of business.

You love the Conservatives for their aim to widen the gap between rich and poor in Canada and for their intention to increase the rate of poverty in the country.

You love the Conservatives for their willingness to increase crime rates and to entrench hopelessness in the lives of many children through that "social policy."

You love the Conservatives for their alignment with George Bush in condemning all the worlds' children to a life of despair and misery in a world that is to become increasingly unfit for human habitation: unfit because Harper, like Bush thinks oil companies are more important than people.

You love the Conservatives because they are determined to destroy Canada as a nation and turn it into a latter day Hanseatic League.

You love the Conservatives because - but why go on! There are a hundred reasons for the blinkered to love them.

As opposed to the loathing I feel for the Liberals, love is a pretty strong word to use when it comes to how I feel towards the Conservative.

Let's just say:

The Liberals had already proven their dismal worth.

12 years. That's a long time, eh?

To tell you frankly, I've come to the conclusion that most things done under the Liberals are more of nice trimmings and packaging...all posturings and window dressings....but terribly lacking in substance.

So forgive me if I don't actually buy that Early Childhood Learning sentiment you Liberal thinkers want to believe. In my views, there's nothing wrong with early childhood learning done at homes. Society had flourished...and had produced countless productive upright individuals without this Early Childhood Learning.

It may offer some help, I cannot deny that....but it does not have to suddenly be the only means, just because, as usual, the Liberals (and the liberal thinkers alike) had decreed that it is what THEY THINK is good for everyone, and therefore it is.

To put it plainly, anything I hear being endorsed by Liberals...I automatically think just plain b*******. You can bet that somewhere down the line ....somebody is making money out of it.

Do I sound cynical. You bet.

Do I seem skeptical? Damn right.

I want them gone.

[Hicksey]

Seems like a bunch of conservatives are patting each other on the back about an election nearly in the bag. All the Liberals that seemed to be fighting what they thought was the good fight for their party seem to have disappeared.

Liberals that I know don't stoop to the level of your venom, hence the silence. Enjoy your con lovefest and hatred.

More liberal smear from someone who knows nothing about me.

Comment about quiet liberals and all of a sudden you're full of venom and hate.

Talk about some open-minded people willing to discuss why that is.

"your" was meant to apply to the cons in general that frequent this forum. I don't hate anyone. But please look back over a few posts and you will see the venom from the cons that I speak of.

I'll admit that that kind of behavior does exist around here but I submit that it comes from both sides of the aisle because while some of us can bait, they cannot resist the bait themselves. I refuse to believe that anyone is that evil.

My post was very simply an observance that in the day following the release of the ads and their negative impact on the Liberals. In that time there seemed to be very few of the normal Liberal party supporters around. That's why I made the comment about what you referred to as the conservative lovefest.

[Wilber]

"Betsy must love two of my favourites: how they plan on getting rid of the Kelowna agreement and turning their back on Kyoto."

This country never turned it's front to Kyoto aside from signing it. It is a prime piece of political hypocrisy. It was championed by a former Environment Minster who represented a constituency that still dumps it's untreated sewage into the Pacific Ocean. This country was never going to meet its Kyoto targets and the Liberals know it. Harper is right to say so and he is right to say that we need to come up with a plan that we can actually make work.

As far as Kelowna goes, I am also curious but will keep an open mind until I hear more.

[sage]

Bravo Wilber!

Since when is winding back an agreement that we were never going to follow in the first place anything but being honest with ourselves.

It also worthwhile to point out that we loathe those who did not sign Kyoto, yet we will still export them our oil and gas.

Typical Canadian liberal arrogance.

[Guest eureka]

The ignorance continues!

Canada has to meet its Kyoto targets anf follow the agreement or risk becoming a pariah on the world stage. We have ratified the agreement.

The US did sign the agreement, btw, We export our oil and gas to a country that did sign the agreement. It has not ratified it under Bush's watch because Bush is Alberta South adn the US will get back in line when he is gone.

It may be too late by then, though.

[Guest eureka]

You identified Canada's problem, betsy. "You automatically think......." Reasin comes from "manual" thinking: thinking and analysing.

These forums are replete with "automatic" thinkers.

[shoop]

The U.S. has gone closer to meeting its Kyoto targets, than we have gone in meeting ours.

What is more important? The signature on a document or what the real action a government takes?

The ignorance continues!

Canada has to meet its Kyoto targets anf follow the agreement or risk becoming a pariah on the world stage. We have ratified the agreement.

[scribblet]

[quote name='scriblett' date='Jan 13 2006, 10:37 AM' post='87960

I beg to differ newbie, I havn't seen any hate or venom much at all, and none from the conservatives. I have however, seen hate and venom from one left wing poster in particular, possibly 2?. The signature of that poster makes the case, and none which adds to reasonable debate or discussion.

I won't mention names but check out initials M.B. and a few of the S's. It's there and a search will reveal plenty.

I'm not going searching, I left another forum because of the personal attacks and insults. I picked this one because it seems to have the least amount of that stuff. Best to stick to discussion, thread drift happens and people can get heated, I prefer to try not to throw insults at posters.

[scribblet]

"Betsy must love two of my favourites: how they plan on getting rid of the Kelowna agreement and turning their back on Kyoto."

This country never turned it's front to Kyoto aside from signing it. It is a prime piece of political hypocrisy. It was championed by a former Environment Minster who represented a constituency that still dumps it's untreated sewage into the Pacific Ocean. This country was never going to meet its Kyoto targets and the Liberals know it. Harper is right to say so and he is right to say that we need to come up with a plan that we can actually make work.

As far as Kelowna goes, I am also curious but will keep an open mind until I hear more.

I'll be darned if I'll support buying credits from the likes of China - thanks but no thanks. We can have our own emission targets without giving cash it to China while they carry on polluting.

[betsy]

The ignorance continues!

Canada has to meet its Kyoto targets anf follow the agreement or risk becoming a pariah on the world stage. We have ratified the agreement.

The US did sign the agreement, btw, We export our oil and gas to a country that did sign the agreement. It has not ratified it under Bush's watch because Bush is Alberta South adn the US will get back in line when he is gone.

It may be too late by then, though.

What is this? "...or risk becoming a pariah on the world stage."

I thought you guys are so concerned about earth melting down hence all these excited bleating about Kyoto.

Never occurred to me it's all about lofty international posturing!

FYI, the CHanber of Commerce Of Canada, in its review of all political platforms, favoured the Conservatives on its stance of "looking beyond Kyoto."

[betsy]

The ignorance continues!

Canada has to meet its Kyoto targets anf follow the agreement or risk becoming a pariah on the world stage. We have ratified the agreement.

The US did sign the agreement, btw, We export our oil and gas to a country that did sign the agreement. It has not ratified it under Bush's watch because Bush is Alberta South adn the US will get back in line when he is gone.

It may be too late by then, though.

Kyoto....hmmmm....

Why, oh why does the UN remind me strongly of the Liberal party?

[mar]

... To put it plainly, anything I hear being endorsed by Liberals...I automatically think just plain b*******. You can bet that somewhere down the line ....somebody is making money out of it.

Do I sound cynical. You bet.

Do I seem skeptical? Damn right.

I want them gone.

um . . . that's not cynical. A cynic would expect the worst from all parties. You're a true believer, accepting the Conservative Party on faith and rejecting all other without even considering the validity of their platforms.

Its a attitude that's becoming more and more common. Some true believers listen to George Bush, some to Osama Bin Laden, some to many others thoughout the world.

Interesting that both the strength and weakness of a liberal or, more generally, a progressive mindset is the tendency to actually listen to other views. The entire liberal tradition is an openness to different ways and viewpoints. The positive is the freshness and ability to survive through new ideas; the negative is that liberal parties are not very good at providing the certainty that true believers crave, tending to see most issues from multiple sides.

[scribblet]

The ignorance continues!

Canada has to meet its Kyoto targets anf follow the agreement or risk becoming a pariah on the world stage. We have ratified the agreement.

The US did sign the agreement, btw, We export our oil and gas to a country that did sign the agreement. It has not ratified it under Bush's watch because Bush is Alberta South adn the US will get back in line when he is gone.

It may be too late by then, though.

Kyoto....hmmmm....

Why, oh why does the UN remind me strongly of the Liberal party?

Hmmmm Maurice Strong and the One World Order

[Hicksey]

... To put it plainly, anything I hear being endorsed by Liberals...I automatically think just plain b*******. You can bet that somewhere down the line ....somebody is making money out of it.

Do I sound cynical. You bet.

Do I seem skeptical? Damn right.

I want them gone.

um . . . that's not cynical. A cynic would expect the worst from all parties. You're a true believer, accepting the Conservative Party on faith and rejecting all other without even considering the validity of their platforms.

Its a attitude that's becoming more and more common. Some true believers listen to George Bush, some to Osama Bin Laden, some to many others thoughout the world.

Interesting that both the strength and weakness of a liberal or, more generally, a progressive mindset is the tendency to actually listen to other views. The entire liberal tradition is an openness to different ways and viewpoints. The positive is the freshness and ability to survive through new ideas; the negative is that liberal parties are not very good at providing the certainty that true believers crave, tending to see most issues from multiple sides.

The problem with the liberal mindset isn't that you listen to peoples' views, rather that you bend over backwards to their every demand in fear that if you ever say no to them their feelings might be hurt.

Progression for the sake of progression is as dangerous as regression.

[Wilber]

"Interesting that both the strength and weakness of a liberal or, more generally, a progressive mindset is the tendency to actually listen to other views. The entire liberal tradition is an openness to different ways and viewpoints. The positive is the freshness and ability to survive through new ideas; the negative is that liberal parties are not very good at providing the certainty that true believers crave, tending to see most issues from multiple sides."

Get serious, there is an election going on. Until it's over almost no one on a political forum is looking at issues from multiple sides.

[Hicksey]

"Interesting that both the strength and weakness of a liberal or, more generally, a progressive mindset is the tendency to actually listen to other views. The entire liberal tradition is an openness to different ways and viewpoints. The positive is the freshness and ability to survive through new ideas; the negative is that liberal parties are not very good at providing the certainty that true believers crave, tending to see most issues from multiple sides."

Get serious, there is an election going on. Until it's over almost no one on a political forum is looking at issues from multiple sides.

I was thinking that too ... well ... more like "I know what color his eyes are ..."

[betsy]

You love the Conservatives because they are refusing to provide Early Learning opportunites for the children you seem to care for given your choice of business.

You are forgeting one thing:

The Liberals had been promising National Childcare for 12 years but have not delivered. What makes you think he will, if elected again?

Think of those poor kids who had grown and missed the blessed opportunity of getting the Early Childhood opportunities that you so highly speak of.

So the Liberals had decided 12 years ago that this is what was DESPERATELY needed. Well? What were they waiting for....next lifetime? If something so supposedly highly important such as this could sit on the Liberal shelf for 12 years, I hate to think what else is or will be gathering dust on that shelf.

Please, enough is enough!

Have pity on Martin and stop bringing up the issues that only gets plastered on him.

[betsy]

You love the Conservatives for their aim to widen the gap between rich and poor in Canada and for their intention to increase the rate of poverty in the country.

The Chamber of Commerce of Canada, in its review of all the platforms of the parties had positive hopes about the way Harper will handle the US.

This chamber had voiced concern over the handling of the Liberal government of the USA, seriously concerned about the impact it will have on our economy.

The speaker mentioned that 80% of our trade is done with the US. She worries about jobs.

JOBS!

To me, that means INCOME.

Income means MONEY.

Without money, you are poor.

[betsy]

You love the Conservatives for their willingness to increase crime rates and to entrench hopelessness in the lives of many children through that "social policy."

Look at the news happening everyday, Eureka. What I see is growing crime rate..........YOUTH CRIMES!

Practically most heinous and violent crimes are done by the youth.

This sudden rise in YOUTH CRIMES....the frequency is so frightening and seem like a phenomenon.....became so prominent under the Liberal watch! YOUTH CRIMES ballooned in proportion under the Liberal watch.

Whatever kind of social policy the Liberals had or have in place right now is surely not working. It's almost like it's designed to do exactly the opposite! Another bundle of taxpayers money wasting away.

The actual cause of this horrendous surging of Youth Crime is an interesting subject that I would like to pursue in another topic.

[betsy]

You love the Conservatives for their alignment with George Bush in condemning all the worlds' children to a life of despair and misery in a world that is to become increasingly unfit for human habitation: unfit because Harper, like Bush thinks oil companies are more important than people.

That is your own opinion. It is not fact.

But I do heard of the dubious way the UN handle things. This prestigious and highly noble organization that your Liberal had aligned himself with....forsaking neighbor and ally and largest trading partner, and most likely the one who'll be rushing to help us defend our own shores in case of attacks from terrorists or other foreign aggression (since we do not have the means to defend ourselves).

I had seen documentaries of Rwanda. I had seen multitudes of children (as if all lives whether young or old are not equal in value) mutilated and murdered savagely. The UN simply walked away.

I am not interested with your boogeyman scenarios. If you're going to poke holes...back it up with facts or evidence! Reason or talk like an everyday jane or john doe. Stop being a parrot.