[ambivalent]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Since the campaign revolved around the fact that the CPC and NDP picked up massive support from angry Liberal voters your particular stance isn't relevant.

More importantly, and even more telling, as pissed off as people were, they still weren't willing to give Conservatives a majority.

Wait until they aren't pissed off anymore and see what happens.

THEN you'll have to get them to vote FOR the Conservatives and not just against the Liberals.

[ThePolitician]

You asked...

DerbyX DerbyX:

Since Martin is stepping down and all those implicated are gone will you and the west give the Liberals a chance when they "clean house" and re-build the party?

And I answered....

ThePolitician ThePolitician:

For myself it wasn't just the liberal corruption, but their platform that I do not agree with. I find that in a federal election, it's the party platform that leads my vote over the individual local nominee for MP.

The lib's can clean house, and put on a new face, but I feel they'll still have some of the fundamental principles that I disagree with.

Then you respond with...

DerbyX DerbyX:

Since the campaign revolved around the fact that the CPC and NDP picked up massive support from angry Liberal voters your particular stance isn't relevant.

So I say, WHY DID YOU ASK FOR IT!?

[DerbyX]

ThePolitician ThePolitician:

You asked...

DerbyX DerbyX:

Since Martin is stepping down and all those implicated are gone will you and the west give the Liberals a chance when they "clean house" and re-build the party?

And I answered....

ThePolitician ThePolitician:

For myself it wasn't just the liberal corruption, but their platform that I do not agree with. I find that in a federal election, it's the party platform that leads my vote over the individual local nominee for MP.

The lib's can clean house, and put on a new face, but I feel they'll still have some of the fundamental principles that I disagree with.

Then you respond with...

DerbyX DerbyX:

Since the campaign revolved around the fact that the CPC and NDP picked up massive support from angry Liberal voters your particular stance isn't relevant.

So I say, WHY DID YOU ASK FOR IT!?

Mainly because I was ansking Tman1 for his answer and his interpretation of the west.

second, your particular answer wasn't relevant because I don't think you count yourself as a angry and disenfranchised Liberal which is almost the entire surge in support for both the NDP & CPC. Those voters will return to the Liberals when the spectre of scandal is gone.

[ThePolitician]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ThePolitician ThePolitician:

You asked...

DerbyX DerbyX:

Since Martin is stepping down and all those implicated are gone will you and the west give the Liberals a chance when they "clean house" and re-build the party?

And I answered....

ThePolitician ThePolitician:

For myself it wasn't just the liberal corruption, but their platform that I do not agree with. I find that in a federal election, it's the party platform that leads my vote over the individual local nominee for MP.

The lib's can clean house, and put on a new face, but I feel they'll still have some of the fundamental principles that I disagree with.

Then you respond with...

DerbyX DerbyX:

Since the campaign revolved around the fact that the CPC and NDP picked up massive support from angry Liberal voters your particular stance isn't relevant.

So I say, WHY DID YOU ASK FOR IT!?

Mainly because I was ansking Tman1 for his answer and his interpretation of the west.

second, your particular answer wasn't relevant because I don't think you count yourself as a angry and disenfranchised Liberal which is almost the entire surge in support for both the NDP & CPC. Those voters will return to the Liberals when the spectre of scandal is gone.

Fair enough, it's pretty hard to ask a question to one person onan open forum though, especially if their name does not appear in the question.

I definitley am not an "angry and disenfranchised Liberal", but alot of the votes for the CPC weren't only because of being pissed off at the libs, but also that voters now see that there is another option out there that will stand up for them and their Canada.

[PluggyRug]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ThePolitician ThePolitician:

You asked...

DerbyX DerbyX:

Since Martin is stepping down and all those implicated are gone will you and the west give the Liberals a chance when they "clean house" and re-build the party?

And I answered....

ThePolitician ThePolitician:

For myself it wasn't just the liberal corruption, but their platform that I do not agree with. I find that in a federal election, it's the party platform that leads my vote over the individual local nominee for MP.

The lib's can clean house, and put on a new face, but I feel they'll still have some of the fundamental principles that I disagree with.

Then you respond with...

DerbyX DerbyX:

Since the campaign revolved around the fact that the CPC and NDP picked up massive support from angry Liberal voters your particular stance isn't relevant.

So I say, WHY DID YOU ASK FOR IT!?

Mainly because I was ansking Tman1 for his answer and his interpretation of the west.

second, your particular answer wasn't relevant because I don't think you count yourself as a angry and disenfranchised Liberal which is almost the entire surge in support for both the NDP & CPC. Those voters will return to the Liberals when the spectre of scandal is gone.

Or... the voters will increase support for the Conservatives when the spectre of fear mongering is gone.

Ruserious had the good grace to acknowlege defeat. Most of the others just sit and whine.

Boy oh boy what a bunch of bad losers, you wanna take your ball home now.

[DerbyX]

ThePolitician ThePolitician:

Fair enough, it's pretty hard to ask a question to one person onan open forum though, especially if their name does not appear in the question.

I definitley am not an "angry and disenfranchised Liberal", but alot of the votes for the CPC weren't only because of being pissed off at the libs, but also that voters now see that there is another option out there that will stand up for them and their Canada.

Thats why I quoted Tman1 just above. Its generally considered that your post is directed to that particular person though you are right that it isn't always easy to tell in forums.

I'm sorry but I don't believe you are correct in your assesment of the votes. Up until the "income trust" question the Libs still enjoyed >35% support and that event seemed to be the "straw". The telling fact is that unlike in '93 the Libs were far from destroyed and harper wasn't handed a majority. That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Pluggyrug Pluggyrug:

Or... the voters will increase support for the Conservatives when the spectre of fear mongering is gone.

Ruserious had the good grace to acknowlege defeat. Most of the others just sit and whine.

Boy oh boy what a bunch of bad losers, you wanna take your ball home now.

We spent the last 2 months listening to cons whine incessantly and had you gotten a majority the gloating would have been off the wall. The only people being tweaked with the fact that the CPC didn't win the majority are perennial CPC pimps like MCB and hwanker.

Are you saying that had martin managed to squeak out a minority then the CPC supporters would just say "congrats" and be done with it? Be honest!

[PluggyRug]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ThePolitician ThePolitician:

Fair enough, it's pretty hard to ask a question to one person onan open forum though, especially if their name does not appear in the question.

I definitley am not an "angry and disenfranchised Liberal", but alot of the votes for the CPC weren't only because of being pissed off at the libs, but also that voters now see that there is another option out there that will stand up for them and their Canada.

Thats why I quoted Tman1 just above. Its generally considered that your post is directed to that particular person though you are right that it isn't always easy to tell in forums.

I'm sorry but I don't believe you are correct in your assesment of the votes. Up until the "income trust" question the Libs still enjoyed >35% support and that event seemed to be the "straw". The telling fact is that unlike in '93 the Libs were far from destroyed and harper wasn't handed a majority. That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Pluggyrug Pluggyrug:

Or... the voters will increase support for the Conservatives when the spectre of fear mongering is gone.

Ruserious had the good grace to acknowledge defeat. Most of the others just sit and whine.

Boy oh boy what a bunch of bad losers, you wanna take your ball home now.

We spent the last 2 months listening to cons whine incessantly and had you gotten a majority the gloating would have been off the wall. The only people being tweaked with the fact that the CPC didn't win the majority are perennial CPC pimps like MCB and hwanker.

Are you saying that had martin managed to squeak out a minority then the CPC supporters would just say "congrats" and be done with it? Be honest!

Well I cannot speak for the others but I certainly would.

I for one did not expect a majority.

[bootlegga]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Just a question. Since the cons knew to get elected they had to move further left then thewy were and were rewarded (though Lib scandals gave it to them).

Since Martin is stepping down and all those implicated are gone will you and the west give the Liberals a chance when they "clean house" and re-build the party?

Sorry, Derby but you know that will never happen. The majority of the seats, especially here in Alberta, are dominated by rural voters, so the Libs and the NDP have virtually no chance of getting seats here. 'My "Edmonton" riding has only 20,000 Edmontonians in it, and 80,000 from the surrounding area...you do the math. Hopefully, the NDP and maybe even the Libs can steer them to proportional representation. Then the 25%-30% who don't agree with the Cons out here will have a say too.

Here in Edmonton, 56% voted for the Cons, 22% for the Libs, 16% for the NDP and 6% for the Green party. The Liberal candidate in my ridging even said he expected most of his support from the Edmonton portion of the riding. In the rest of the province, it was 70% for the Cons, 13% for the Libs, 10% for the NDP and 7% for the Green Party.

Under PR, we likely would have had 5 Cons, 2 Libs and 1 NDP here in Edmonton. In the rest of the province there would have been about 14 Cons, 3 Libs, 2 NDP and 1 Green Party seats. 19 out of 28 seats is hardly the sweep the Cons talk about. A large majority yes, but not a clean sweep...

Once again I'll say this, the Cons may be the majority here in Alberta but do NOT speak for all of us!

All I'm saying is that there is a Liberal minority here in Alberta that feels just as oppressed by the Cons as the Cons do by Ontario...

[chsh]

While I agree fearmongering was a pathetic tactic, I do have to say, there has to be something there to reinforce that fear. I think for a lot of people, Harper's party (not necessarily Harper himself) provided enough ammo over the last 2 years for many canucks to doubt they are actually a credible party.

Fearmongering wouldn't have worked all that well against someone like Trudeau, for instance. He just had the raw charisma that it would've done nothing.

*Rant coming*

That all said, does it seem like in the last 5-10 years politics at all levels in Canada have gone the way of the U.S. elections? By that I mean, campaign ads depicting the other side as evil, and just generally saying only bad things about other people. I mean, I like to think that politicians still realise that we aren't the mirror fogging zombies that some of the American media makes American voters out to be, and that we still do want to hear about their stances on issues. I just see so much of the "oh man, this guy is the devil. He eats puppies. With Ketchup! What a cad!" BS, and it's gone to all levels of government. Even in some municipal elections attack ads are becoming common.
I don't get it. I'd love to see as part of the electoral reform stuff a clause that states no ad may be aired demeaning or bashing a candidate. It could appear on an opinion program or what have you, but no ads. Given the parties get public money per vote per year for elections, I don't think we should have that money go to hatemongering BS during an election. You want 30 seconds to talk about how great you will be when you lead the country, that's fine by me. I do not want them to be able to just fire off a steaming pile of crap at our expense.

*Rant over*

Phew, so yeah. All I can say is, at least we have a government. So for the next day or so, we can guarantee we have a government, death, and taxes.

[Chumley]

Some Canadians don't trust Harper yet. The West has put their trust in the Conservatives as long as the East has done for the Liberals.
The Liberals have had a long and very lenient stay in power.
Will you give Conservatives the opportunity to show that hey, maybe we do have some (not all perhaps) good ideas?
Will you give them a chance even if they don't screw up or toss them despite yourselves?

[Canuck938]

Harper is a neo-con, his ideals are the same as those of George Bush. To say give him a chance reminds me of Neville Chamberlain waving a peace treaty signed by Hitler saying we have peace with Hitler. I have ears to hear what Harper has said in the past but obviously most people are deaf. This guy is what he is. A NEOCON, read up on it.

[Chumley]

To compare Harper to Hitler is laughable.
I have read up on "Neo Conservatism" and actually I agree with a lot of the characteristics attributed to the outlook on the world that is attributed to them.
Why are Liberals believe so absolutely that each and every value they hold is 100% right? Don't you ever question yourselves?
I certainly do.
Harper is not about to build a war machine while noone is looking and go stomping across the planet building a 4th reich, however, having the will to readily defend ones country and beliefs is a valuable thing.
If you want to make a comparison to Neville, it would more accurately be the Liberal ideal of all talk, no action and the maybe the bad terrorists will go away. Then again, maybe they won't.

[Canuck938]

Who said I was a liberal or left wing fanatic. I made my statement based on past observations of Harper's mouth. If you like neo-conservatism you would fit right in with the fascist movement of the 1930's, lie, cheat, steal and kill. Good moral code you have there buddy. Bush must be your idol. exploitation of others is our goal. If Harper is as extreme right wing as I think he is and tries to implent his ideology you will see bloody violence directed against him and his supporters.

[Chumley]

You are a fanatic. Fanatically anti Conservative from your statements.
Conservatism is not Fascist nor are Conservatives nazis.
That is a very insulting statement.
"Anyone who is not a liberal must be a nazi" is becoming a tired chant and I am getting tired of hearing it.
By your reasoning I could equally say all Liberals are anarchists.
Lie,cheat and steal is something I am familar with seeing - from the liberal party. I don't think harper has killed anyone yet, but by a stretch I could equate that to Liberal endorsement of abortion. Which by the way I am not totally against either.
Bush is not my idol. I do not agree with the war in Iraq.
And if Harper being right wing is enough to inspire you to bloody violence against conservatives, then the Liberal party can keep you. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

[hwacker]

Canuck938 Canuck938:

you will see bloody violence directed against him and his supporters.

By who Liberals, hahahah

Don't make me clean the coffee off my screen again.