Originally Posted by Phoneup

Why would I even bother with a rebuttal. I don't bother explaining my position when people have such a flawed logic. And when there is also a lack of common sense.

Actually you are coming off as extremely childish. I urge you to read over every platform carefully. You will find that all three platforms have "bad math". The conservatives will not be able to create a million jobs. The liberals and NDP will not be able to continue spending without a dramatic raise in taxes or furthur reduction to Ontario's credit rating.

Large decreases in public spending and decreased taxes have been shown to massively increase private sector jobs and overall income. Often conservatives take it too far. Mike Harris was able to do dramatic wonders for the ontario economy .. but he went too far and cut taxes too far resulting in great losses in public infrastructure (hospitals, 407, transit, power etc). A rather less conservative (but still conservative) approach is exactly what ontario needs right now

Here is a handy (and unbiased) link that summarizes the parties platforms

http://www.cbc.ca/elections/ontariov...rty-platforms/

Originally Posted by Phoneup

Why would I even bother with a rebuttal. I don't bother explaining my position when people have such a flawed logic. And when there is also a lack of common sense.

You're calling my logic flawed and saying I lack common sense but you're failing to explain either. If you're going to criticize my contribution to this thread then at least have the courage to explain why. If you have something to contribute then type away, if you can only make exclamations about how senseless you think I am then just sit on your hands and don't clutter up the thread.

Tim Hudak is a delusional man who uses grade 5 math to calculate the fate of the province. Brilliant.

Originally Posted by qwerty91

Actually you are coming off as extremely childish. I urge you to read over every platform carefully. You will find that all three platforms have "bad math". The conservatives will not be able to create a million jobs. The liberals and NDP will not be able to continue spending without a dramatic raise in taxes or furthur reduction to Ontario's credit rating.

Large decreases in public spending and decreased taxes have been shown to massively increase private sector jobs and overall income. Often conservatives take it too far. Mike Harris was able to do dramatic wonders for the ontario economy .. but he went too far and cut taxes too far resulting in great losses in public infrastructure (hospitals, 407, transit, power etc). A rather less conservative (but still conservative) approach is exactly what ontario needs right now

WTF on earth are you talking about? When in the world did I say in any of my posts in this entire thread that the PCs are the only ones who have done a terrible job in their math estimates?

It seems that I'll have to explain things to you in the most simple terms: the PCs math is the worst and as someone else said it is the most delusional and most ridiculous.

And really, you're calling me childish? You're not agreeing with my view and that's what you resort to? Pathetic. If you want to make a point, then by all means go ahead, don't resort to name calling because you seem to get extremely offended when others don't agree with you. I backed up everything that I said in my original post where I replied to you, which you have not responded to.

Originally Posted by samd

You're calling my logic flawed and saying I lack common sense but you're failing to explain either. If you're going to criticize my contribution to this thread then at least have the courage to explain why. If you have something to contribute then type away, if you can only make exclamations about how senseless you think I am then just sit on your hands and don't clutter up the thread.

First of all, I created this thread, and since then, I have already responded to someone. Failing to explain and contribute? I beg to differ, as I clearly explained why Hudak is a moron and I backed up everything that I have said.

In your first post you basically said people shouldn't be concerned about Hudak's math and ridiculous claims just because the other parties have flawed claims as well. That is ridiculous. No party is perfect and has 'perfect math' that is completely unbiased, but when you exceed the line and make such ridiculous claims which Hudak did then people should certainly pay attention to that and take note of it as well.


Also, the other party leaders are not 'nit-picking' on Hudak's terrible math. Hudak has repeatedly backed up his numbers ALTHOUGH economists and many others have pointed out the flaws in his numbers. So he is clearly standing strong by his numbers, which show how much of an idiot he truly is (or rather how stupid he expects some people to be). If all 3 parties have made such ridiculous claims, then how do you explain the outcry and extreme outrage at Hudak's math that's basically coming from all sides? Exactly.

The proof is in the pudding, of course. Obviously Hudak's bad math came back to bite him, considering how poorly he did last night.

Originally Posted by Phoneup

Failing to explain and contribute? I beg to differ, as I clearly explained why Hudak is a moron and I backed up everything that I have said.

And then when I came along afterwards and offered a different opinion you responded with exclamations of nothingness. In case this wasn't clear: I don't really care about how you responded to the other posts, only the way you responded to mine. I'm always game for a good political debate, but if you're just going to exclaim "this guy makes no sense!" without explaining why I "make no sense", it's unhelpful, unproductive and not in the spirit of Macinsiders.

Originally Posted by Phoneup

In your first post you basically said people shouldn't be concerned about Hudak's math and ridiculous claims just because the other parties have flawed claims as well.

Nope, I never said that at all. Please read my post again, you won't find that in there. People should be concerned about every politician's ridiculous claims, just not surprised or swayed.

Originally Posted by Phoneup

but when you exceed the line and make such ridiculous claims which Hudak did then people should certainly pay attention to that and take note of it as well.

The Libs were claiming that they would increase public spending and then the deficit would just magically go away in 2017/2018, to me that's as ridiculous as anything else. Also, paying attention and taking note are the same thing.

Originally Posted by Phoneup

Hudak has repeatedly backed up his numbers ALTHOUGH economists and many others have pointed out the flaws in his numbers. So he is clearly standing strong by his numbers, which show how much of an idiot he truly is (or rather how stupid he expects some people to be).

And Wynne stood by her bad math, and Horwath hers. It's what politicians do. It's extremely rare to see a politician back down from a statement or position during an election, even when it's the right thing to do. When Obama came out in favour of gay marriage he did it well in advance of his 2012 election, and also well after the 2010 midterm elections, safe territory for a change of position.

Originally Posted by Phoneup

If all 3 parties have made such ridiculous claims, then how do you explain the outcry and extreme outrage at Hudak's math that's basically coming from all sides?

Well the "outcry and extreme outrage" wasn't coming from all sides, it was coming from the left, almost exclusively from public sector unions. Right wing economists and commentators pointed out the errors in Hudak's math, and seemed generally embarrassed for him, but most of them endorsed Hudak anyways, because they found Wynne's budget even more egregious.

I'm not saying all three leaders, or all three parties, are equal, or were equal in this election. What I'm saying is they're all equally manipulative, speculative, and math-challenged. When trying to decide who to vote for or against, the numbers in their platform are the last thing you should consider, if you have to consider them at all.

Originally Posted by samd

And then when I came along afterwards and offered a different opinion you responded with exclamations of nothingness. In case this wasn't clear: I don't really care about how you responded to the other posts, only the way you responded to mine. I'm always game for a good political debate, but if you're just going to exclaim "this guy makes no sense!" without explaining why I "make no sense", it's unhelpful, unproductive and not in the spirit of Macinsiders.



Nope, I never said that at all. Please read my post again, you won't find that in there. People should be concerned about every politician's ridiculous claims, just not surprised or swayed.



The Libs were claiming that they would increase public spending and then the deficit would just magically go away in 2017/2018, to me that's as ridiculous as anything else. Also, paying attention and taking note are the same thing.



And Wynne stood by her bad math, and Horwath hers. It's what politicians do. It's extremely rare to see a politician back down from a statement or position during an election, even when it's the right thing to do. When Obama came out in favour of gay marriage he did it well in advance of his 2012 election, and also well after the 2010 midterm elections, safe territory for a change of position.



Well the "outcry and extreme outrage" wasn't coming from all sides, it was coming from the left, almost exclusively from public sector unions. Right wing economists and commentators pointed out the errors in Hudak's math, and seemed generally embarrassed for him, but most of them endorsed Hudak anyways, because they found Wynne's budget even more egregious.

I'm not saying all three leaders, or all three parties, are equal, or were equal in this election. What I'm saying is they're all equally manipulative, speculative, and math-challenged. When trying to decide who to vote for or against, the numbers in their platform are the last thing you should consider, if you have to consider them at all.

Once again, you're saying the same thing: "Hudak's platform was not terrible because hey...the other platforms were not very good."

I'm not going to explain what I have said again. The people of ON have spoken and my point has been proven.

I hate to keep this going, but now you've written in two different threads misrepresenting my positions, so I'm not going to drop this.

Originally Posted by Phoneup

Once again, you're saying the same thing: "Hudak's platform was not terrible because hey...the other platforms were not very good."

I understand that you mean to paraphrase my actual comments, but this is not at all what I was saying. I never argued for the PC platform, not even as the "lesser of three evils". In fact, I found it to be the worst of the three evils. If you read my first post again, you'll find that I wasn't even comparing the merits of the platforms, I was saying we need to take this debate to a higher level and get above the party talking points.

Were you against Hudak simply because of his bad math? I'm assuming it had more to do with his overall political philosophy and intentions, rather than any particular number in the platform. And did you support who you supported simply because their math was good? If Hudak's math was better would you have voted PC?

Parties form their platforms based on their core philosophies and strategies, so that's how we as voters should evaluate them. The numbers are always fabrications, tacked on to legitimize or brand platform planks. It's in your best interest to ignore the numbers and look behind the curtain, no matter who it is.

Of course I didn't not vote for him because of his math only. I looked into other things as well.

was hoping the 100k job cut would make it live...
got government personnel working full-time when they can get all their work done for the day in 2 hours..

Originally Posted by jitnikovi

was hoping the 100k job cut would make it live...
got government personnel working full-time when they can get all their work done for the day in 2 hours..