2011 Canadian Election

Take a drink when:

-During the pre-game show, a party rep tries to set the bar absurdly low for his or her candidate as a ploy to win the expectations game. (“Harper’s only been PM for five years—he can barely speak English”; “Ignatieff only taught at Oxford and Harvard. He’ll be lucky if he doesn’t set his podium on fire.”)

-Harper says the word “coalition.” Two sips for “reckless coalition.” Three sips for “reckless coalition with socialists and separatists.”

-Host Steven Paikin makes a reference to Twitter.

-Duceppe yawns, buffs his nails, or drops the L-bomb (“liar”) again.
anyone tries to sound like Ronald Reagan. “There you go again…”

-Layton says “working families” or “coast to coast to coast.”
the leaders use any of the following verbal tics: “Let me be clear,” “Friends,” “Let me be perfectly clear,” “What he isn’t telling you,” “Let me be crystal clear,” “Vets before jets.” Pin the phrase on the party leader.

-A reporter says the words “knockout punch” or “game changer.” In the moment, of course, it’s impossible to know if the game-knockout-changer-punch has been uttered, but every reporter hopes to get his or her voice on tape if it happens. It’s a living.

-Ignatieff tries to be folksy, but comes off as condescending.
anyone says “gravy train” (yes, this is part of the federal election now).

“Toronto” is said in a derogatory manner.

-A leader invokes a half-invented story about someone he met in a swing riding on the campaign trail (“…like Debbie in Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, who…”; “…like Raj in Brampton-Springdale, who…”).

On April 13 2011 08:08 On_Slaught wrote:
Can you give us some background on the politics/drama of the canidates involved?

On April 13 2011 08:17 CTStalker wrote:
probably voting liberal just to oppose this:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5733/125/

On April 13 2011 08:08 On_Slaught wrote:
Can you give us some background on the politics/drama of the canidates involved?

On April 13 2011 08:20 Treadmill wrote:

You know, there's more than one way to vote against the conservatives

Sorry, proud little Alberta Dipper here.

On April 13 2011 08:22 CTStalker wrote:


i voted green last time, but i don't want harper to win a majority government.

On April 13 2011 08:31 Eruaphadion wrote:
Harper has done a fine job serving this country and he will continue to, minority or not.

On April 13 2011 08:21 bonifaceviii wrote:
Gilles Duceppe has won every single federal debate since he took over the Bloc. If he was the head of any other party at all, he'd be prime minister.

On April 13 2011 08:17 CTStalker wrote:
probably voting liberal just to oppose this:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5733/125/

On April 13 2011 08:31 Eruaphadion wrote:
Harper has done a fine job serving this country and he will continue to, minority or not.

On April 13 2011 08:44 Taku wrote:
CBC is streaming it online here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/leaders-debate/
I'd like to hear the policies of the opposition rather why Harper sucks -_-

On April 13 2011 08:46 Darpa wrote:
Is it just me, or is Ignatieff just saying the same thing over and over in every section....

Also seems like a lot of mudslinging.

On April 13 2011 08:55 Treadmill wrote:
Harper is absolutely incorrect on his "party with the most seats forms the government" line. Pariliament, collectively, decides who the governement is.

On April 13 2011 08:55 Treadmill wrote:
Harper is absolutely incorrect on his "party with the most seats forms the government" line. Pariliament, collectively, decides who the governement is.

On April 13 2011 08:58 Darpa wrote:



I never realised the Bloc has 50 seats with 1.3 million votes where as the greens had 900,000 and no seats. Thats pretty outrageous. In the end he is right though, if he gets the majority he will form the government.

On April 13 2011 08:58 Darpa wrote:



I never realised the Bloc has 50 seats with 1.3 million votes where as the greens had 900,000 and no seats. Thats pretty outrageous. In the end he is right though, if he gets the majority he will form the government.

On April 13 2011 09:05 sjh wrote:
Gilles Duceppe is such a boss

On April 13 2011 09:07 Taku wrote:

Bill 101! Bill 101!

On April 13 2011 08:20 Treadmill wrote:

You know, there's more than one way to vote against the conservatives

Sorry, proud little Alberta Dipper here.

On April 13 2011 08:37 StarStruck wrote:


I kindly disagree. He should have been out a long time ago if he didn't use those ridiculous tactics to stop everything.

I'm not a big fan of any party at the moment. :/ Then again, I was never a big fan of politics in general, but this year seems to be the worst for me. None of them are good leaders.

The guys I know in the military make really good money. I know tons of guys involved, but heck you ask any other country and they'll ask, "What military?"

We have next to zero presence around the world in terms of arms (goes back to your government spending; yet, the guys who are in the military are well paid). :/

On April 13 2011 08:37 StarStruck wrote:
The guys I know in the military make really good money. I know tons of guys involved, but heck you ask any other country and they'll ask, "What military?"

We have next to zero presence around the world in terms of arms (goes back to your government spending; yet, the guys who are in the military are well paid). :/

On April 13 2011 09:36 o3.power91 wrote:

I always thought the Canadian "no military" stereotype was because of the fact that Canada never really had dire need for a military. Were I Canadian, I would take that as a compliment to the country. Canada is one of the most peaceful countries I know, however I believe spending into military is still required for security purposes.

As for presence worldwide, if I'm not mistaken, the only country that has such strong military presence outside of it's own land is the US (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

On April 13 2011 09:33 Mastermind wrote:

A vote for any party but the Liberals is a vote for the Conservatives. No other party has a chance of coming close to winning.

On April 13 2011 09:39 Mastermind wrote:

We actually had quite a large military for the size of our country up until after the Korean War, which was the last war we took part in until Afghanistan.

On April 13 2011 09:54 Kerpz wrote:
Harper speaks intelligently, and so far isn't really unable to articulate anything above the din of the three idiots beside him. I like the fact that he is calm, respectful, and doesn't speak to the Canadian people like we are fucking children.

On April 13 2011 08:37 StarStruck wrote:


I kindly disagree. He should have been out a long time ago if he didn't use those ridiculous tactics to stop everything.

I'm not a big fan of any party at the moment. :/ Then again, I was never a big fan of politics in general, but this year seems to be the worst for me. None of them are good leaders.

The guys I know in the military make really good money. I know tons of guys involved, but heck you ask any other country and they'll ask, "What military?"

We have next to zero presence around the world in terms of arms (goes back to your government spending; yet, the guys who are in the military are well paid). :/

On April 13 2011 09:54 Kerpz wrote:
My first post, and its a rant. Watching Canadian politics is like watching a soap opera in the middle of the day. A soap opera made by a local, community funded television station in a grocery store parking lot. You know, "Good for you, and hurray for local talent but this is still a pile of dog shit"

As a Canadian I am embarrassed that out of four leaders on stage only two can speak intelligently and only one has anything to say.

Layton - I liked his stab at the electoral process, I find most of his banter basically intended (as usual) to 'stir the pot' and to drive the discussion off course. I wonder why he keeps doing the same old things when we all see right through his bullshit. As if "22 minutes" wasn't embarrassing enough we have to watch this guy flap his gums, hoping that no one outside our country is lame enough to tune in and see this mess.

Duceppe - reminds me of an overweight sweaty aunt, living in a ransacked trailer bitching about how her fifth aborted fetus should be counted as a dependant on her unemployment cheque. I won't even dignify that slug with any elaboration. Luckily, this aunt only exists in my private world, where I run to for comfort when I am bombarded by inane bullshit.

Harper speaks intelligently, and so far isn't really unable to articulate anything above the din of the three idiots beside him. I like the fact that he is calm, respectful, and doesn't speak to the Canadian people like we are fucking children.

Ignatieff is a fucking stooge. 'nuff said. Here is the kicker. I am (was) a liberal. I voted for that dummy Chretien and the rather eloquent Mr. Paul Martin. When he fell from grace a almost punched my own dick off. Bam! Recession!! We are watching the pinched tip of the economic log slide down the rabbit hole. Enter Harper ("hurr-perr") no bullshit, swingin' dicks, making reasonable decisions. I know pat my (thankfully) unpunched dick every night before bedtime.

Green Party (not in attendance, apparently too 'coo for schoo', must have been a Collective Soul concert somewhere) - Corporate tax cuts are not evil when you understand how the economy works above a 3rd grade level. The Kyoto accord is a dream we should strive for, but not jump to overnight. For fuck's sake China is still using lead paint. If we stick our dicks in the ground and fuck mud in the hopes of creating a cleaner planet it will only send more jobs, resources etc. to countries who simply don't give a fuck.

Doesn't matter how you vote, only that you do. Keep it real fellow Canadians, and let's at least get a majority gov't in and avoid this embarrassment for at least another 4 years.


EDIT: re-fixing typos

On April 13 2011 10:22 Phantom wrote:


You haven't added one single point to the discussion with your post, it's pure bullshit. Rather than actually dissecting the arguments and points that each leader raised you've decided to build caricatures of the leaders in the debate. You're not funny and you're not well informed, so stop trying so hard. The Green Party btw, were not in attendance because they didn't hold a damn seat in the Parliament. I suggest you actually re-watch the debate and comment tastefully or just not reply at all. And when you actually do address any policy issues, the only party you even talk about is the Green Party which wasn't even there.

You have an inkling of the right idea in your very last statement, that our current system is somewhat of an embarrassment, but it's not because we've had to face a minority government for the past five years. And a majority government by the Conservatives is certainly not the answer. The embarrassment is this archaic electoral government which does not give proportional representation. It is one of the few points that I thought Jack Layton was very wise to bring up during the debate. I think he also made great points in immigration addressing the issues of temporary workers in Canada as well and helping families immigrate to Canada.

Also, going back to the debate, I couldn't understand why Harper kept saying that the Conservatives were in power for five years because they had done something to merit those five years. they suspended government twice to stay in power, that's hardly them gaining any merit to stay in power.

On April 13 2011 09:54 Kerpz wrote:
My first post, and its a rant. Watching Canadian politics is like watching a soap opera in the middle of the day. A soap opera made by a local, community funded television station in a grocery store parking lot. You know, "Good for you, and hurray for local talent but this is still a pile of dog shit"
+ Show Spoiler +

On April 13 2011 10:39 buickskylark wrote:
canadian politics is pretty boring. i feel the only way to make it interesting is if it included rona ambrose and a cigar.

On April 13 2011 09:43 Treadmill wrote:

Bullshit. That might be true nationally, but we don't VOTE nationally. We elect a local MP. And in around 100 ridings (a third of the total) it's the NDP that has the better chance to beat the conservatives. Ridings like the one I'm in, where voting for the Liberals is the way to waste your vote.

On April 13 2011 10:32 Taku wrote:

Buddy, I think his post was addressing perception and how the leaders appeared in the debate, or how they came across as. For better of worse, it's a very big part on how politics work out, perception. Attacking his intelligence personally rather than contributing to the discussion, personal opinions or not, is worse imo.

But yeah, Harper came across as stable and refined to me as he intended I'd say. Layton came out with his usual witty manner and keeps things interesting while pushing himself as an alternative. For Duceppe, this debate was meaningless so he basically got to troll everyone while keeping seperatist face. Ignatieff failed in his first chance at establishing legitimacy as the only viable alternative while Layton came out strong so I'd say Layton won this with Harper/Duceppe coming out unchanged.

On April 13 2011 11:51 salito wrote:
The Bloc isn't a non-factor. They have more seats than the NDP.

As far as the debate went, I was most impressed by Layton. Not that it matters though, I'm indifferent to Canadian politics and don't vote.

On April 13 2011 13:10 Destro wrote:
I will always vote conservative until the day the liberals can regain their dignity and accountability. Bring back cretien imo. Sick of these spineless leaders. Harper is the only leader that has the resolve to be a prime minister.

On April 13 2011 13:43 Vysen wrote:
woah, how many political parties does Canada have?

On April 13 2011 13:28 Krytha wrote:


Ironically, Stephen Harper campaigned on honesty, transparency and respect for tax payers. Now we have lies, secrecy, and gross misspending of tax dollars everywhere you look.

On April 13 2011 12:56 Krytha wrote:
Harper also claims that he is putting Canada back on the path to economic recovery? The only reason Canada is in the ok shape that it is in right now is because of the Liberal banking policies implemented by Paul Martins government. Under Harper, the economy is still stagnant and the total amount of jobs has decreased. The unemployment rate is currently around 7.7% and many of those created are mcjobs that pay minimum wage. Youre not going to be able to use those tax credits or tax free savings with a job like that.

On April 13 2011 13:43 Vysen wrote:
woah, how many political parties does Canada have?

On April 13 2011 13:54 Oboeman wrote:
The Vancouver Sun had an internet livestream going with Elizabeth May, to try to allow her to participate in the debate (one-way) since she got locked out. It was a great idea and a noble plan but unfortunately the quality was so bad that I gave up and went back to watching the official debate.
It was too bad, because last election, she kicked ass during the debate, always being the first one to call out any of the other leaders and catch them in a lie (and as always there is a lot of lying and deliberate misinformation in the debate).

Overall pretty good debate. I wish they'd have an extra moderator with a whiffle bat anytime someone got caught in a lie.
Like harper denying the corporate tax cuts, denying the coalition to replace Paul Martin, and Jack Layton dodging the Bill 101 question.

Good performance especially from Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, I think.

I felt Harper's attempt to construe the contempt of parliament non-confidence motion as an opposition scheme to pull an election backfired in the face of the other three's points about honesty, accountability, and democracy.
To me it came off as quite whiny - "we're only having this election because YOU guys weren't listening to ME, and you guys ganged up on MEE. It's not fair!". This was reinforced by him practically begging for a majority so he can have his way.
Whereas the other guys focused on earning the trust of the house and how important co-operation is in a minority.

On April 13 2011 15:27 SolidMotion wrote:
To be honest... The party who gets my vote is the one that's going to do something about internet fees and gouging...

www.openmedia.ca

So far it's looking better but man... our internet sucks...

On April 13 2011 15:53 SichuanPanda wrote:


Yea too bad having all the parties bicker at each-other in parliament when no party has a majority government is retarded. I'm not entirely sure how that seems whiny in the least bit because quite simply, any meaningful bills, bills that would have made a good example of Harper's government were immediately stomped down by the other parties in 'Coalition Government'. Which by the way is a horribly short-sighted loophole in Canadian politics. Harper's government cannot make any meaningful changes because the other parties in parliament immediately squash any and all of his bills that might make him look good - for fear of said bills making their parties lose votes.

The reality of the situation in Canadian politics right now is we have to select the party which will screw up the least, not the one that is the best, as they are all horrendous. Personally I would say the NDP has never had the opportunity to run the country and since it has been so long since that party's inception most people don't even consider voting for them, despite whether or not their platform is good. Moreover their heavy reliance on social programs and strong catering towards union labor would create just as unfavorable of an atmosphere as catering to big business CAN create (of course catering to business is not bad, if done correctly.) Having people who know a relative or a good friend in a union and can get them a job in it, and also those who merely scrape by using the union as a crutch take all the jobs away from hard working people is equally bad to giving the ultra rich breaks which are not deserved.

Liberal really should never be voted for under any circumstances, their solution to every single political, economical, and social issue is to A. Create a new government sanctioned company to control whatever the issue is, or B. Throw money at the problem through taxes until the goes away, or until the tax payers have had enough and give up pushing whichever issue may have originally come up.

The option we are left with is Conservative, I personally do not find Harper to be a very solid leader, however, he is a better option than Micheal 'I Come Back To Canada After 30 Years To Get Power And That's All' Ignatief, Jack 'Grandpa' Layton, or Gilles 'Separator' Ducceppe.

People always talk about how 'Harper's government hasn't done anything' and to many degrees this is true, but what they also haven't done is caused massive scandals, squandered billions of dollars on near useless ideas (have you all forgotten the gun registry fiasco?), create countless unnecessary social initiatives which are done in an effort to 'create jobs' but all they really create is more superficial government jobs which actually degrade the quality of and the number of jobs available in the private sector.

Every year the number of people employed directly by the government increases, what is going to happen to the value of our economy when over 70% of the people work for the government? Think about it. In what rational world would it make sense that 30% of the population works outside of the government and the rest don't. Those 30% are going to become plebeian slaves who pay 85% of their wages in taxes to support the rest. Evidently this cannot occur in a civilized society.

Canada is continually slipping in downward spiral of increased regulation in business, as well as personal and daily life alike, government jobs are on the rise, as are taxes for almost all consumers, and if we decide to vote in Liberal again we are going to continue down the slippery slope of extreme socialist tendencies, into the pit of communism. I'm sorry but I have to say it, the path we are headed on is going towards that direction. There is little difference between having a dwindling private sector, a rising public sector, and a rising unemployment level - and fully becoming communist. Maybe that's what Canada wants though, I mean with the way people continue to vote for the obviously insufficient Liberal or NDP parties it would be hard to think otherwise.

I for one do not want this, and any sane, rational human being in Canada who agrees with me would be smart to vote Conservative. Everyone needs to stop having selfish reasons to vote, and vote the only reason that matters - the good of the country. If you don't have that in mind when you go into the both and when you weigh your options for leaders, then do us all a favor, don't vote at all.




The Liberals talk very strong words about their policy for the internet, however, given their continual track record of using high-profile issues to get the votes they need to get in, and then proceeding to simply do as they please doesn't bode very well for voting based purely on this issue alone. Another reason not to vote - if you are voting for one single issue.

On April 13 2011 13:43 Vysen wrote:
woah, how many political parties does Canada have?

On April 13 2011 16:34 FlyingSheeps wrote:


Zillion anyone can start a political party and run for any Seat and as there are no general election's for Prime Minster they simply need to win Majority to run Canada xD

There are 5 major parties,

Conservatives,
Liberals,
NDP,
Bloc,
Green,

On April 13 2011 10:22 Phantom wrote:


You haven't added one single point to the discussion with your post, it's pure bullshit. Rather than actually dissecting the arguments and points that each leader raised you've decided to build caricatures of the leaders in the debate. You're not funny and you're not well informed, so stop trying so hard. The Green Party btw, were not in attendance because they didn't hold a damn seat in the Parliament. I suggest you actually re-watch the debate and comment tastefully or just not reply at all. And when you actually do address any policy issues, the only party you even talk about is the Green Party which wasn't even there.

You have an inkling of the right idea in your very last statement, that our current system is somewhat of an embarrassment, but it's not because we've had to face a minority government for the past five years. And a majority government by the Conservatives is certainly not the answer. The embarrassment is this archaic electoral government which does not give proportional representation. It is one of the few points that I thought Jack Layton was very wise to bring up during the debate. I think he also made great points in immigration addressing the issues of temporary workers in Canada as well and helping families immigrate to Canada.

Also, going back to the debate, I couldn't understand why Harper kept saying that the Conservatives were in power for five years because they had done something to merit those five years. they suspended government twice to stay in power, that's hardly them gaining any merit to stay in power.

On April 13 2011 10:32 Taku wrote:

Buddy, I think his post was addressing perception and how the leaders appeared in the debate, or how they came across as. For better of worse, it's a very big part on how politics work out, perception. Attacking his intelligence personally rather than contributing to the discussion, personal opinions or not, is worse imo.

But yeah, Harper came across as stable and refined to me as he intended I'd say. Layton came out with his usual witty manner and keeps things interesting while pushing himself as an alternative. For Duceppe, this debate was meaningless so he basically got to troll everyone while keeping seperatist face. Ignatieff failed in his first chance at establishing legitimacy as the only viable alternative while Layton came out strong so I'd say Layton won this with Harper/Duceppe coming out unchanged.

On April 14 2011 00:36 Albrithe wrote:
Layton and Duceppe should have came away from the debate feeling the best. Layton does his best to work on legislation that works for the best interest of families, foreign policy, the environment, health care, education, etc. These are all essential investment avenues for our future, and I'm glad to see he still pushes these points really hard. He was critical of both Liberal and Conservative leadership (as he should be, last 3 governments have been taken down with non-confidence...), and while he did some lashing out at the other parties he mostly kept what he had to say about policy. I lol'd hard at his usage of 'bling' and his ability to make light of his cane.

Duceppe kept up his usual "gogo quebec we're number 1" which, while I don't agree with a lot of their policies (like the dump he managed to take on himself over multiculturalism), there's a lot to be said about a politician who works for the people he represents to get the best results for them. I recall he said something like, 'if a piece of legislation is good, he'll vote for it, if it's bad, he'll vote against it'. I'd agree with the addition of "if a piece of legislation is good for Quebec". If every MP acted with such conviction in working towards improvement for the people they represent, I think we'd all be a lot better off. Is Gilles ALWAYS that red though?

Ignatieff, while I would argue otherwise most of the time, came across as a rambling ass. He barely spoke a word about policy, which absolutely infuriates me. The Liberals have so much going for them and it absolutely boggles my mind that Ignatieff would use all of his time in a 2 hour debate for mudslinging. There's already been enough of that in the news... We've all heard about the scandals. Yes, it's good to bring them up in the debate but he repeatedly pressed them to the point of boredom and embarrassment.

Harper did what he's always done, tell people he's the Jesus of economic recovery. I have very strong opinions about the moral integrity of this man. The fact that he was so disrespectful to how Parliament operates ("bickering"? really) proves to me that he isn't fit to run a democratic country.

On April 14 2011 08:27 57 Corvette wrote:
Oh boy, Layton's french is err.. not the best. It would be funny to watch, but I have other concerns for tonight.

On April 14 2011 09:02 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The CBC simultaneous translation into English is awful. I can understand neither the English translation, nor the French original on this stream.

Is there a purely French stream?

On April 14 2011 08:20 kmo_9000 wrote:
Of all the other useless websites I never thought I would find links to the debate on this forum.

All I could fund were the closing comments. Really nothing new. Bloq still dreaming about seperation, the usual from harper and ignatiaf.

On April 14 2011 09:27 Falling wrote:
Anyone watching the French stream- how are the leader's fluency in the debate? Duceppe obviously is on his own turf, but how about the others.

On April 14 2011 09:27 MoltkeWarding wrote:
It's astonishing how little we actually find out about their platforms through these debates.

On April 14 2011 09:43 Cotillion37 wrote:
I'm in Harper's riding. It's a bit ridiculous trying to vote for anyone else in this riding since he's going to win.

On April 14 2011 10:51 Masq wrote:
watching the french stream really makes me realize how bad my french is.

On April 14 2011 09:22 ScaryOlive wrote:
Oh my god..

Layton= We love familys and workers!
Duceppe= On aime le Québec!
Harper= Our government is really good!
Ignatieff= Don't vote conservative, you have no other choice than liberal.

......

On April 14 2011 11:04 AWakefield wrote:
My take on this election is Screw the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP Im pretty equally unhappy with any of them. Going to vote for Green Party just because its not any of them.

Although I have to say if the conservatives win I might rage slightly harder then if anyone else does.

On April 13 2011 15:27 SolidMotion wrote:
To be honest... The party who gets my vote is the one that's going to do something about internet fees and gouging...

www.openmedia.ca

So far it's looking better but man... our internet sucks...

On April 14 2011 12:00 Glaven wrote:
http://www.shitharperdid.ca/

^ all you need to know.

On April 14 2011 11:17 SwEEt[TearS] wrote:
Quebec apologizes for Duceppe's terrible, terrible english.

I mean it. I cringed -_-

On April 14 2011 12:57 Durak wrote:

I tuned into the link in the OP and it seems the French debate is on right now? These three clowns have the worst pronunciations I've ever heard and half the time I can't understand their terrible points.

On April 14 2011 12:32 ThePimpImp wrote:

As for people's hate for the conservative and harper, it has to do with their policies basically being very pro alberta/oil/rich and very anti economic or social responsibility. As a non rich non albertan who doesn't pay for the $1.30/L gasoline, I'm not voting for harpers lackeys. I don't think the other parties are much better, but they should get a try.

I'm actually seriously considering whatever candidate supports internet freedom , I think there are candidates up on open medias website, but anybody who votes down ubb or fights our higher than everywhere internet costs, I'll probably vote for them.

On April 14 2011 13:16 B00ts wrote:
To defend Harper and the conservatives...

Canada has actually done the best in the recovery during and after this recession. We are back to pre-recession unemployment, the TSX is above pre-recession levels, and the Canadian dollar is now just under 4 cents above the American dollar... The canadian economy is doing great relative to the rest of the major nations.

Everyone knows nothing in Canada caused or could have prevented the recession... Canada just relies too much on the EU and US markets. Yet Canada is coming out on top (relatively). Which is why when Harper said that in the debate, no one disagreed, and instead changed the subject. I dont mind a little secrecy is taxes are lower, and I can keep my job.

However, I too will probably vote based on the internet gouging debate. lol

On April 14 2011 13:39 Krytha wrote:


Again, Harper did not implement the banking regulations that prevented the housing market from bottoming out like the states did, that was during the Liberals run with Paul Martin. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/13/paul-martin-budget-deficit-trailblazer
So basically he is just taking credit for someone else's policies as he would've permitted deregulation of the banks because that is the "big-business friendly" way that conservatives like to do things. As for fiscal responsibility, Harper has now left Canada with the biggest deficit in its history. The Canadian dollar being higher than the US dollar is terrible because this makes it more expensive for US people to buy our stuff and we WANT them to buy our stuff because 75% of our exports head down south, so a higher canadian dollar actually hurts our economy, it's not like spending a little less on your trip to Florida is good for canada as a whole. Additionally, check the unemployment numbers that some guy posted - the jobs that were lost were health care jobs and the jobs that were gained were in food services. Not a good thing.

On April 14 2011 09:48 Dugrok wrote:

That actually doesn't make much sense. That's like saying ''everyone's jumping off a bridge. It's ridiculous trying not to jump off a bridge because everyone else is''. Unless of course, you've been convinced by his politics. In which case, go ahead and vote for him.

Also, I'd really like it if they would talk about something other than the gun registry. It's literally the same lines coming from Ignatieff and Harper on this issue as what they were saying last night...

On April 14 2011 12:53 Krytha wrote:


Exactly. I'm looking at all these replies saying no one knows what is wrong with our current conservatives. Does no one follow the news? The conservatives have been completely undemocratic and secretive and just THROWING money around like they were swimming in a pool of it like Scrooge McDuck. Somebody had a link to statscan about the current state of our economy and it shows that the total amount of jobs has decreased, there were losses in health jobs and an increase in food service jobs. Woowoo Stephen Harpers economy will let you get a job at Mcdonalds! Bet you can put away 10k in 5 years into that nice tax free savings account that Harper promised with a job like that. And now the Bank of Canada is saying that their expectations for economic growth have decreased... again... Freaking bang up job right there.

As far as internet rights go, Im going to let the courts settle that one for now, I dont think any one party has a political platform really geared towards that stuff.

On April 14 2011 13:48 B00ts wrote:
You can't fault Harper for policies he kept in from prior to him taking office. What would you have him do? Remove them only to throw them back up so they can be his? huh?

Also, the balancing of the budget that Paul Martin did, was needed because his own government that was in power for 12 years had gone crazy in the first term (ish).

As for the housing crash, yes Canada's HOUSING market didn't crash as hard as the US's, however Canada did, as every other major economic power, experience a recession. Canada has come out stronger than any other nation.... A fact his opponents do not disagree with.

On April 14 2011 13:56 Gnial wrote:
I open that link "shitharperdid.ca", and the first and only thing that shows up on the page is some one-liner that "harper doesn't know the difference between natives and Indians."

Thats such garbage. It may shock some of you, but aboriginal legal status in Canada is as "Indians". They are protected under our constitution as "Indians" and under the "Indian Act". The main front page of the site claims that Harper is ignorant of the difference between aboriginals and Indians...but if you are 1/2 informed you'd be able to figure out that whoever manages the site is just a moron.

I'm not leaning one way or the other politically - but one thing I am against is people who use this kind of trash to decide whom to vote for. Why on earth would you present a site as a source for your political position which bases its arguments on bullshit semantics?

Educate yourselves, and stop spreading filth.

On April 14 2011 13:56 Gnial wrote:


I open that link "shitharperdid.ca", and the first and only thing that shows up on the page is some one-liner that "harper doesn't know the difference between natives and Indians."

Thats such garbage. It may shock some of you, but aboriginal legal status in Canada is as "Indians". They are protected under our constitution as "Indians" and under the "Indian Act". The main front page of the site claims that Harper is ignorant of the difference between aboriginals and Indians...but if you are 1/2 informed you'd be able to figure out that whoever manages the site is just a moron.

I'm not leaning one way or the other politically - but one thing I am against is people who use this kind of trash to decide whom to vote for. Why on earth would you present a site as a source for your political position which bases its arguments on bullshit semantics?

Educate yourselves, and stop spreading filth.

On April 14 2011 14:24 SpookCell wrote:


I believe it's a reference to an event where Harper wished Native Americans a Happy Indian Republic Day when its a holiday in India and not for Native "Indians".

Source

On April 14 2011 14:09 Krytha wrote:

No, I'm saying that Harper should NOT be credited with doing such an amazing job with the economic state Canada is currently in (which is still nothing to write home about, recession and all) while you clearly thought he was ahead of the curve in your first post.

And now that Harper has created the largest deficit in Canada's history, he... will be balancing the budget by?? Spending billions on underperforming untendered contract F-35s? Lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% (ridiculously low compared to other G8/G20 nations?)?? Throwing 1.2 billion dollars of tax payer's money into the G8/20 summits? Misappropriating those funds and lavishing them on prominent Conservative ridings like Tony Clements'?

Im not saying Canada wouldn't have experienced a recession if Harper hadn't been voted in, yes it happened, yes we aren't as screwed as other countries, but it is only a matter of being slightly less screwed.

edit:


I couldn't find that particular one you posted since it doesn't cycle through them in order, but each blurb references an actual article at the bottom there, so although I can't verify your outrage, try some of the other ones on for size (you can check the references too, if you'd like). Honestly, it's a funny way to present information, but it isn't wrong.

On April 14 2011 11:39 Lanaia wrote:
I would have watched the entire debate, but I have a 20 page essay due in a couple days. Sorry!

People on Facebook are talking about voting. One status in particular bothered me:
"Dear everyone else who goes to VIU and bitched endlessly about the strike: If, in the upcoming election, you a) don't vote b) vote conservative, I will cut you. That is all."

Is there something super-wrong with the Conservatives that I've been missing? Personally, I don't think they're doing anything wrong, so why should we change it (except to obtain a majority for some party)?

On April 14 2011 14:51 Krytha wrote:
Well... a quick look on the cbc.ca website will give you access to all the political articles you want, any number of which from the last week or so are enough to make me mad.

edit: another article on the notion that planned corporate tax cuts will help boost the economy... or not...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/13/cv-election-corporate-tax-cuts-ccpa-810.html

On April 14 2011 15:00 B00ts wrote:
First of all, every government has to run a deficit sometimes. To think otherwise is to be misinformed.

Shit happens, war happens, recessions happen (and bailouts are needed). How do you think EVERY company in the world operates? By only spending profit and cash on hand? Never going into debt? No organization would ever generate growth or jobs that way. The same goes for nations. You cannot get anything done without debt. This is why pretty every major economist in the US is saying the banks need to start lending again.

Yes our economy is something to write home about. Everything is relative.

The point that the F-35's are underperforming is based off one test of a pre-mass produced version. Its like saying no one should ever buy the next Windows OS because the alpha version is sooo bugggyyy gawwwd.

Should we not upgrade our military equipment so we're not easier shot down in theatres of war? Whether you think Canada should play a role in peacekeeping is of course of to you, however if you are, I don't see how anyone could make an argument against these planes. By saying they are too much you put a price on our troops lives.

Lower tax rates invite investors and companies to do business in canada, causing larger tax revenue. Not only that, but they create jobs. I mean, the liberal government had a balanced budget because they taxed so much, and that shitharpersaid website would have you believe they didn't spend like the conservatives do. Like I said. Epic Troll.

And why is having a lower tax rate than other G8 countries so bad? (we dont really btw, because you have to include provincial taxes, and when you do, we are above the US's tax rate). We are doing better in this recovery than all of them...... So you want to be like them?... what???

On April 14 2011 15:09 B00ts wrote:
First sentence...

labour-oriented Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Labour oriented.
Labour oriented.

You mean Labourer's and Unions have something bad to say about corporations? You dont say.... And it was a statistical study based on an unknown $6 billion. Which 6 billion? Maybe that was a selective $6 billion. You gotta take these things with a grain of salt.

Its not like there are dozens of top Universities throughout NA that believe tax cuts bring investment and jobs. ... oh wait

On April 15 2011 01:33 BandonBanshee wrote:
Gonna vote for the first time in this election. I have no idea who though In Oakville if that makes a difference

On April 14 2011 14:59 Wegandi wrote:
Anyone in Canada today resemble Sir Wilfrid Laurier? You guys used to have a decent libertarian movement.

On April 15 2011 03:23 ziggurat wrote:
- Sound policies to encourage economic growth
- Cutting national debt
- Lower taxes (or at least not raising them)

On April 15 2011 03:23 ziggurat wrote:
The most important issues for me are:

- Sound policies to encourage economic growth
- Cutting national debt
- Lower taxes (or at least not raising them)

I feel that the conservatives have been delivering on these issues since they've been in power, so I will be voting for them in this election. Of course my riding is a super-safe conservative riding anyway so it hardly matters how I vote.

On April 15 2011 03:26 Djzapz wrote:

Those two are in direct opposition. What's your plan, what public services do we cut in?

On April 15 2011 03:36 Albrithe wrote:
And I'd even add, that zigg's other most important issue, sound economic growth policies, is only actually true because of the policies put in place by Paul Martin while he was finance minister during Chretien's PM run, and while he was prime minister after that. We were running a surplus while Paul was around, and now we're running a deficit again. In fact, if you go back and look you can notice a very prominent trend: The last 3 times that a Liberal government was replaced by a conservative government, we went from having a surplus to having a deficit.

I feel that the conservatives have been delivering on these issues since they've been in power, so I will be voting for them in this election. Of course my riding is a super-safe conservative riding anyway so it hardly matters how I vote.

It's just not necessary and a colossal waste of tax payers money. We already pay enough to keep an absurd amount of non-violent offenders behind bars, fed, clothed, etc.

On April 13 2011 08:37 StarStruck wrote:
The guys I know in the military make really good money. I know tons of guys involved, but heck you ask any other country and they'll ask, "What military?"

We have next to zero presence around the world in terms of arms.

On April 15 2011 04:15 Albrithe wrote:
I didn't get to see the French debate. I sort of assumed I wouldn't miss much aside from Jack, Mike, and Steve showing off their lack of linguistic finesse to Quebec.

On April 15 2011 04:02 Djzapz wrote:

Especially in the French debate, Harper's opposition didn't hesitate to shove that in his face. Are Canadians really standing for that kind of BS?

I mean, it's 2011, you'd think that by now we'd realize that putting little drug dealers behind bars (which costs $80,000/year) just isn't the way to go. Building more prisons to hold more people who shouldn't be in prison - such a waste of my money. Herp derp, marijuana so dangerous!

On April 15 2011 04:15 Albrithe wrote:
I didn't get to see the French debate. I sort of assumed I wouldn't miss much aside from Jack, Mike, and Steve showing off their lack of linguistic finesse to Quebec.

On April 15 2011 04:18 ziggurat wrote:


Virtually nobody goes to jail over marijuana in Canada, even for trafficking. And it's well known that incarcerating violent criminals is one of the best ways to reduce violent crime.

On April 15 2011 04:26 Albrithe wrote:
Based on Wikipedia's rate of drug related crime, 295 per 100000 people, 295/100 000 * ~33 million people is 97 350, or approximately 100 000 drug related charges in that year. While you're right, not all are jailed, the Conservatives are suggesting harsher sentencing along with mandatory minimum sentences for drug related charges. This means that a higher % of that 100 000 will be incarcerated for longer, or at all.

Anyone wanna help me out here if you know more about this?

On April 15 2011 04:34 ziggurat wrote:


My understanding is that they are proposing mandatory jail for trafficking in schedule 1 drugs (not marijuana) for repeat offenders. So if you get caught and convicted of selling crack, and then you go out and get caught and convicted of selling crack again, then you get a minimum 1 year in jail.

This doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me...

On April 15 2011 04:39 Djzapz wrote:

The years in prison may not seem unreasonable to you, but you have to think of the other things involved. Like I said in a previous post, there's all the business with judiciary procedures.

As for the potential jail time itself, I still think it's completely unnecessary to put people in jail for that. But I'm a freedom nut so eh - I'd only put people in jail if they're a (REAL) and direct danger to other people.

On April 15 2011 04:46 ziggurat wrote:
I kind of agree with this. Generally speaking, tougher sentences for drug dealers are something that isn't that important to me. Like I said, the most important issues to me are the economy and taxation.

Here is a link to the text of the bill, FYI. It's a bit more complicated than I realized. One of the exceptions does say that you can get mandatory minimum jail for trafficking in Marijuana, if the amount is over 3 kilograms.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4497977&file=4

You can read this in conjuction with the CDSA as it presently reads:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/

On April 15 2011 05:00 Krytha wrote:


There's a section in the first document that says that a minimum sentence of 6 months is issued if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than 5. That's a pretty wide range. So... you get the same jail time if you grow 10 for personal/medical use and the dude who has 200 to sell to his whole neighbourhood? It's so arbitrary.

On April 15 2011 00:47 Albrithe wrote:
This "election BS" happened because our elected Members of Parliament are doing their jobs. They're keeping the party that formed government in check so they don't continue to get away with the tricks they pull, like using the Senate to override legislature. Or sending money to ridings, have the ridings send them back, only to doctor invoices as though they had spent that money (and get a 60% return on that non-spent money they claim they spent). Or the jets that no one can provide a comprehensive cost analysis for. Or the increase in prison spending when it's been shown that crime rates have been dropping in the past 10 years.

I don't know how anyone can continue to support a government that lost power due to a non-confidence motion passed based on them withholding information from Parliament after that government was elected based on promises of transparency. It doesn't make any sense to me.

On April 15 2011 07:47 Zzoram wrote:
Well the issue was Harper claims that Canada will be able to buy the F-35s for tens of millions less per plane than the US will even be able to buy them for. That's clearly a lie.

On April 15 2011 07:46 Albrithe wrote:
B00ts, correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding was that the speaker found the Harper Government in contempt of Parliament based on a committees recommendation, and then Parliament passed a motion of non-confidence based on that contempt charge. So I don't think it's correct to say it wasn't a non-confidence vote but was a contempt charge; it was both.

I did over-simplify the budget, but what you said is only true for a minority government.

As far as I'm concern the CRTC has to go. Half of the directors touch dicks daily with the big cable companies and internet companies that bill us through the roof for internet usage.

On April 15 2011 08:06 B00ts wrote:


Source?

On April 15 2011 08:12 TadH wrote:



Yes source please, This is interesting.

On April 15 2011 11:18 Krytha wrote:

So here we are again, I never said that no country should ever have a deficit, I made a specific point about this government claiming fiscal responsibility and yet having the largest deficit in the history of Canada. It also makes no signs of getting it under control, certainly not with the kinds of expenditures they have lined up. So there goes your first "point".

The F-35s are well... not the plane that we need and not at that price. There you are putting words in my mouth about how Im willing to throw the lives of our troops away if we DONT buy these planes. Well, read this.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973799--f-35-a-poor-fit-for-canada

Oh and if you want to write that one off as "left wing socialist commie propaganda that hates our troops" maybe you would want to read one from an Australian soldier's point of view?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated-02681/

If we need new planes, we need them. But how about the proven CF-18 super hornets? They can be had brand new for way cheaper and perform very well. Why does it have to be the F35s which are priced by the US at 151 million each while Harper says we're going to get them for 75 million? And why so many? Canada doesn't need a massive airforce. We need enough for the rare peacekeeping that requires air support, which is usually a NATO or UN mandated situation which means we have other partner countries, not enough to fight a war? Harper is like a used car salesman here telling us that these planes are going to do great for Canada when we A) don't really need them and B) can't really afford them C) don't even know how much they will cost us in the end. So, there goes that "point".

As far as your last point goes, I already linked a study that shows the trends of companies and how tax breaks do not lead to economic growth. It will be very nice for companies who are here, but they will not be reinvesting that money in the way you think they will be. Sorry. They also certainly won't pick up and move if we return the rate to 18% which is STILL very very low. The only difference being that we will gain an additional 6 billion in revenue which you can immediately squander again on those shiny fighter planes if you so wish.

On May 02 2011 11:37 LonelyIslands wrote:
Tomorrow is the big day to vote ... blue!

On May 02 2011 23:50 Freaky[x] wrote:
The Block , NDP and Liberals should just put their feelings aside and make a coalition which would keep people in check and change who makes propositions and such.

On May 03 2011 00:24 mprs wrote:
hey quick question,

which party will lead us to an internet promise land? need to figure out who i wanna vote for

On May 02 2011 23:52 Darpa wrote:



Its because the bloc is a provincial party that somehow has federal representation and quebec has so many seats that more often than not when you have a minority government it comes down to what the bloc wants when passing bills and supporting budgets ect.

Green party -900,000 votes --- 0 Seats

Bloc - 1,200,000 Votes - 50 seats.

Thats why alot of people have a problem with them. They essentially demand conscessions for quebec from any government, and then when the gov't refuses they try to form a coalition or join the official opposition in trying to prevent anything from going through.