I think the outcomes of this election are painfully, painfully obvious:

1) Harper doesn't get his majority
2) Another election in 3 years.
3) Elizabeth May will still ***** about how she can't be in the TV debates.
4) Gilles Duceppe will still look awesome.

And I cannot believe both the Libs and Tories haven't addressed the health care issue. It's a big deal and they've turned a blind eye on it. Major no-no.
EDIT: I just realized the Conservatives are releasing their platform tomorrow. I won't be so quick to judge.

Originally Posted by jo87

Yes he does, Liberals are scum who don't understand that criminals belong in jail and that sexual assault is sexual assault and nothing else.

Hey there, easy on the words woman. That's just one stupid Liberal that spat that out. One. Not all of them.

And you really got that hate on them. Did the Liberals burn your house down?

U mad bra?

She was pointing out that the European model of higher taxes doesn't lead to an effective government, as someone else erroneously posted. Our government actually looks marginally competent compared to some European countries- which is saying a lot.

I understand your points, and I think you'd have to be an idiot to say the Conservatives are doing a good job. But its not like elected officials from any party have a history of doing a performing well. What were you expecting? Politicians will waste money and do a bad job, life goes on. Whatever party happens to be the one screwing up at the time is largely irrelevant to the overall process.

EDIT: I just realized I double posted. Mods can you remove this?

Why am I also hearing about a new case of YOUNG VOTERS being turned away from Conservative rallies? We have this guy running that turns youth away from his rallies, just because they may be smarter than him (typically University students)

http://www.thespec.com/news/election...ent-from-rally

Again, I'm not saying any other party is flawless, but there are people who believe this same person should be promoted to a majority rule over Canada.

Laws are meant to be broken. No one man should have all that POWER. The clocks ticking so I just count the hours....


YEEZY TAUGHT ME

Originally Posted by mike_302

This thread will explode... But I feel like I need somewhere to say what I think:

Every time an article comes out about the Conservatives, there's something obvious that the reporter seems to ignore... Usually an obviously ridiculous flip-side to the main point.

Take for example this article by CTV: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...elect ion2011

Titled:
Harper would double tax free savings to $10K per year

What does that mean to the government? Potentially less tax dollars, and therefore a smaller budget... Smaller and smaller and smaller... Harper seems to promise that Canada will run off a smaller budget every time there's an election!
Of course, the line after this title in the report says: "But this will likely happen only after the deficit is paid down in a few years".

The reduction of taxes, promised by Harper every time there's an election, is just one point that irks me about his campaigns.

There's also the case of throwing people out because of Facebook histories with the Liberals... Harper's response is to turn it around and try to make his campaign look "obviously more popular". His response to the allegations is simply, "The Liberals and NDP just don't like that I have too many people at my rallies and they have trouble filling the venues"... COME ON! REALLY? Whether or not it's true (I haven't looked into it), the fact of the matter is that Harper is discriminating and removing the tough questions from his crowd before he has to answer to them!

I realize all of this is successful politics, but it's AWFUL for the health of a democracy. There's also the constant ads, whether an election is on or not, that try to rip apart the Liberals... And the proroguing of Parliament... This isn't a healthy democracy anymore. It's a big guy doing whatever he wants, and I'm not even going to waste more time linking you to proofs of that (i.e. the convicted adviser, the contempt of parliament charge, and more)

Anyone remeber the sponsorship scandal that the liberals had a few years ago? http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/
I think that was worse than what Harper did now.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Why am I also hearing about a new case of YOUNG VOTERS being turned away from Conservative rallies? We have this guy running that turns youth away from his rallies, just because they may be smarter than him (typically University students)

http://www.thespec.com/news/election...ent-from-rally

Again, I'm not saying any other party is flawless, but there are people who believe this same person should be promoted to a majority rule over Canada.

You are so not original, you sound like a lazy political science student. These students that attended are not Harper supporters, why should they be at his rallies if they don't like him or intend to vote for him? Instead of letting haters into the rallies, it should be a place for supporters to come and ask questions. I'm tired of ignortant students preaching about world problems and issues they have no clue about.

Read the article again. The girl had absolutely no ties to anything except a "no plastic water bottles on campus" team. And why should anyone be turned down to hear a politician speak? Because if that politician wants their vote, they have to win them over... IGnorant student? No clue about world problems? Try again . Please, also take note of the point I've made about Harper's campaign team being too worried about youth asking TOUGH questions. I'd like to see a candidate that is a good enough speaker to take a tough question from other party supporters, and handle it appropriately... OR at least a candidate who isn't too scared to let certain young people in because those young people don't have the same views as him regarding plastic water bottles, or something similar.

And regarding the sponsorship scandal from a few years back: I remember it well... And I remember several major shake-ups in the Liberal Party since then.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Read the article again. The girl had absolutely no ties to anything except a "no plastic water bottles on campus" team. And why should anyone be turned down to hear a politician speak? Because if that politician wants their vote, they have to win them over... IGnorant student? No clue about world problems? Try again . Please, also take note of the point I've made about Harper's campaign team being too worried about youth asking TOUGH questions. I'd like to see a candidate that is a good enough speaker to take a tough question from other party supporters, and handle it appropriately... OR at least a candidate who isn't too scared to let certain young people in because those young people don't have the same views as him regarding plastic water bottles, or something similar.

And regarding the sponsorship scandal from a few years back: I remember it well... And I remember several major shake-ups in the Liberal Party since then.

Well google Joanna MacDonald name, she's a be enviro freak, attended so pretty big international enviro pro events etc. Plus she looks like Iggy.....I think they are related. Izzy Hirji posted some message on facebook long time ago about taking Harper down cause he did something he didn't approve of.

Really... you're going with "Joanna looks like the competition's relative, so it's OK that Harper's campaign team prevents her from asking him a tough question" ?

And you're going with "Izzy's Facebook profile is anti-Harper so she shouldn't be allowed to see him and ask him about what his campaign is for the youth voter" ?

Once again, it comes back to: This guy doesn't want youth asking him questions that he will have a hard time answering... And you can't use the response: "They were security threats" because if the security is going to creep the voters on facebook and google, they should have the time to give them a good check in-person.

Originally Posted by jo87

Well google Joanna MacDonald name, she's a be enviro freak, attended so pretty big international enviro pro events etc. Plus she looks like Iggy.....I think they are related. Izzy Hirji posted some message on facebook long time ago about taking Harper down cause he did something he didn't approve of.

The more I read your posts, I'm starting to think you were one of those officials at those conventions throwing people out.

Originally Posted by _Luu_

The more I read your posts, I'm starting to think you were one of those officials at those conventions throwing people out.

LoL...I wish, they probably get paid nice and I already stalk people on facebook, it would be cool to get paid for it. I don't mean to be rude, I just like to have fun once in a while...

Originally Posted by Marlowe

She was pointing out that the European model of higher taxes doesn't lead to an effective government, as someone else erroneously posted. Our government actually looks marginally competent compared to some European countries- which is saying a lot.

Firstly, the idea of a "European model" is a North American construct, and an inaccurate one at that. There's a "Southern European" model, a "Germanic model", a "French model", a "Scandinavian model", and further divisions within those...

Second, it appears that you're using an economic gauge, and comparing Canada to either:
i. Southern European countries, who don't face quite the same economic demands and strains as we do (the demands of the average Portuguese are not fully comparable to the demands of the average Canadian), or ii. countries in the Anglosphere (eg. Ireland), who follow an economic path quite similar to our own. In both cases, we don't get any compelling proof of our government looking 'marginally competent' against those using the 'European model', since one comparison is flawed a priori (we'll always look good when we compare ourselves to 'poorer' countries, won't we?) while the other is basically a comparison to a smaller, slightly whiter version of ourselves (without the U.S. to help us out).

Let's look outside the economic sphere for a bit. Compare the murder rate, the incarceration rate, the number of repeat offenders, etc. in Canada with that of many (most?) northern European & Scandinavian countries (on the whole, nations with a higher overall and city-based population density than Canada) and you'll see that our 'tough on crime' paradigm doesn't work. That's just one example of how Canada doesn't measure up when we use a social gauge - there's plenty of others, I'm sure. Add to this that even within the economic sphere, many northern European and Scandinavian nations are doing just as well (this comparison is valid, since the general demands of the average Canadian are roughly similar to those of the average Netherlander, for example), if not better, than we are...

Those "bouncers" at these rallies are actually RCMP officers turned minions to the all powerful and almighty Harper Government... According to the RCMP administration, they are officers that are not supposed to be "bouncing" but who have been doing so at the request of the Conservative campaign team.

I hate bumping posts, but I think this has more validity than a bump:

"On Friday, Harper unveiled his party's election platform, a document that outlines plans to eliminate the deficit by 2014 -- a year earlier than planned."
--- http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...elect ion2011

Can someone confirm for me: A Yes or No would suffice... Does Harper plan on cutting taxes for the rich, AND eliminating deficit earlier than planned?

(In case clarification is needed about "cutting taxes for the rich", I'm referring to his plan to increase tax-free savings account limits to $10,000, from $5,000, which only benefits those who make enough to pocket $10,000 a year... Hint: Not a single student)