QUOTE (stephen @ Dec 1 2008, 03:19 AM)
The cap under the Liberals was only $5 000, I believe, not $50 000 or $100 000. It wasn't an insanely high amount. But that aside, (again!) I don't have a problem with their dropping the maximum amount, but rather with how they did it.
How did they do it?...how does any politician change the rules....they just change the rules
Or, maybe, just maybe, the Liberals had a different focus when they were raising funds: A focus that the Conservatives made illegal. And it's not the Liberals can't raise funds. They did so very well - until the Conservatives changed the rules once, and tried to do it again. That's where your car analogy falls apart. Toyota didn't make it illegal for GM and Ford to do what they had been doing, but the Conservatives did.
Lets get real, its not about the method of fundraising...all methods that are legal are available to all parties...The car analogy does not fall apart. Changing rules about amounts of money donated does not make a party or its ideologies obsolete...but good try
I can just as easily argue that a coalition would be
more democratic, as the 63% of the population who didn't vote for Harper are now better represented. .
mmm NDP supporters who would never vote Liberal and vice versa better represented? Another good try! not only that....there is talk of getting support of the bloc by giving more money to Quebec!!! Im sure this is in the voting interest of 63% of canada
The blunders of harper are but a wisper in the wind to this Typhoon of theiving oposition leaders "bambooziling' Canadians of there vote
And further to this notion of it being undemocratic, Harper himself petitioned the Governor-General back in 2004 to be allowed to form a coalition government, so if it wasn't too undemocratic for him, why is it too undemocratic for the other parties? It's obviously not, but he's just hoping that everyone forgets he tried to do the same thing: hence his continuing lies.
Harpers coalition was not done after 6 weeks after a federal election literaly STEAL the power with out Canadians vote. (this is a very poor example and does not support your arguement)
However, he cut funding for the arts many times, and ridiculed artists, so that people would be less likely to listen to them. (As examples, there was that whole gala remark, and when he cut programs, he mentioned the ludicrous expenditures, and ignored the reasonable ones that were many, many times larger than the stupid ones. And it's actually not true to say that he gave more money to the arts. In fact, he lumped in arts and culture, and increased money to that new mixture, but the lion's share went to the non-arts component (like the Vancouver Olympics). This way, he was able to decrease the funding of the arts while maintaining the illusion that he was giving more.
There is lots of arts and culture in canada...you make Harper sound like the Taliban. I personally dont think Stephen Harper is againsed arts or artists if this were the case we would be living in a Police State...if you look around this is not the republic of China. Every politican makes a blunder im sure they regret. A tempest in a tea cup.
Fair enough. Especially seeing as how I didn't tell you who to support either.
Although you did tell me who not to support.
Yep, you're right. That is definitely a blemish on their record, and a big one at that. That's why I said "that much evidence".
That much??? well I can direct you to a wesite that will list you the countless scandals that tarnish the liberal party...This isnt pretty and its only for 2005 Yeeeesh
http://conservativereporter.wordpress.com/...als-re-visited/
And a lot of that comes from reading the paper, and smacking myself on the forehead, saying, "How could Harper do that!"
That is the problem...The east is very Liberal and so is the media. I can understand that they will spin everything he does in a negative light. Remember you have to "Look behind the curtain"
Am I prejudiced against him? Yep, definitely. I know it, and I try to keep it check. I go on the basic assumption that everyone has biases, and it's better if you just admit it, as then you can try to take it into account when making decisions. So I do try to give him the benefit of the doubt....but he's making it very hard for me to do so.....
Just remember...when you want to get negative about Harper he has
Lowered taxes, This includes YOUR taxes, Taken on crime...Somthing that the Liberal HUG A THUG approach couldnt do. Artic sovereighnty, Accountabilty, Child care allowance....and the list goes on. These are all things that the Liberals failed to do. The Liberals may be popular in the east but my biggest complaint is that they have a deaf ear to the west.
Stephen
I'm sorry, Stephen, but I can't continue this now, for a few reasons.
1) Partly because you really haven't countered many of my points (just saying "nice try" or stating "it doesn't fall apart" doesn't count as constructive argumentation in my books, or in any books I'm aware of, and that's probably at least a third of what you wrote, if not half. I tried to answer all of your, and others' points, in a logical, cohesive, all-encompassing manner, and I'm sure I wrote more than people wanted to read in some areas, but I was trying to adequately cover everything.)
2) Honestly, I have a hard time actually deciphering your points - just ask Thomas about me and grammar, spelling, etc.
3) It's a lot later here than it is there, and I have to get up to go assimilate the French in a few hours, so I should try to get at least a bit of sleep before then.
Anyway, it's been fun, all.
Have a good one!
JohnS
