Majeres' Musings

Some say Harper has to come out with his Party Platform now and to start promoting it.

I am going to go out on a limb and muse:  why doesn't he ask people what they want and give it to them?

Start with showing compassion for the "left".  Policies that actually help such as increased CPP benefits as in cash on the barrel.  Or, also how about any person on CPP gets 100 dollars removed per month from their rent (apartment) or property taxes (house owner).  I know, I know, you state tax cuts.  Well tax cuts on CPP just won't cut it, as what .... say an extra 5 ibs of potatos worth per month, no thanks, that won't work.

Also with the "left".  How about removeing moped import restrictions, as in all restrictions so the working poor can afford some "mobility freedom", "freedom in choice of Public Transportation or Personal Transportation now as in mopeds.  See, the word "freedom" and ''choice" keep coming up?  "Freedom" only works when tied to concrete items - cheap imported mopeds, not just political buzz phrase lip service.
Think of the new business owners in Metro's importing cheap mopeds, more jobs.

Then move on to Quebec, which once Quebec gets their better UI benefits, it counters the Soveriegntists, does it not?  Would not that play out well as in trying to keep Canada together?  Try asking what else would they like, then try to accomodate them.  Think like your a Prime Minister negotiating trade deals etc.

Ontario, I have thought out many words on Ontario and the psy behind their votes.  In a nutshell,  more individual soverignty.  Harper listened to me a long time ago when I suggested they get the Chretian reciept (hastily written of course) and get the original to have the ink tested for degradation.  It was a nice try but Chretian would not give in and would only produce a copy.  I was "the commoner from the streets of the falls" back then.  Well Stephen, people are tapped out in major cities.  Make their lives easier by giving them more choices, easier movement, less restrictions, no fear as in changing the status quo, and get the cops out of raiding gardens that have cannabis in them.  (i had to get that in there somewhere)  Think of the wasted money and manpower that could be spent on reall crimes.  Remember the Senate Report that stated that it should be fully legal for the ages 14 and over, as in that is how harmless it acutally is.  How about 18 and over, as legal as turnips and put the money and manpower to appease your American buds on the Border.  Remember, if cannabis gets into the States, it passes the American Border Guards.  

Just read what I have written in the past posts.

The Prairies?  Here is where your lower Corp Taxes really come into play.  Incorp farmers.

BC?  They will have their "number one"  industry outed.  That will help them and remove the fear of the Jackboots busting into their personal gardens.  BC gives a collective sigh of relief, heard on every street.

Ok enough dreaming.

cheers  :)  majere

the ndp don't count Stephen.

Yes the Libs must be chuckling themselves to sleep at night.

In Gomery, all they could basically prove was, "he said, he said".

In the Grewal tapes, all they could prove was that politicians are skillfull at saying nothing but meaning different things to different people.  "Beating Around The Bush"

And they got elected because they speak how??????

It is this, no hard evidence as they say can mean to some that the presumed innocent Liberals remain innocent.

The Libs must have had to have taken some serious downers to get through the last several days so as not to be seen rolling around in the Halls pissing themselves they are laughing so hard.

cheers  :)  majere

PS:  the Conservatives tried really hard to show that the Libs will stoop to this level of political speak to not get caught, but I say it would have only have been good for a couple of days, not a couple of months or even a couple of weeks.  I know hindsights a bitch.

There is nothing wrong with Politician having religous convictions.

Unless his religion is against the CANADIAN Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Then, in my opinion it would be war.

If a Politicians religion is not in conflict of the Charter, then there can be no conflict to Canada and to the citizens of Canada.

If a Politicians religion is used to decide interpretations of the Charter which run contrary to ensuring that errors are always made on the side of "freedom, freedom of choice", then there is a religion conflict.  That Politician is then against Canada and its its citizens and should be immediatley removed.

Canadas' laws and Governance are such that it is the "negative" of Gods law that is used:  "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you".  In other words, its stay out of my business and I will stay out of yours.  No government or organization peering into my backyard or basement.  No nosy neighbours peering over my fence infringing on my soverignty.

Canadas' Social Security is based on the "positive" writing of Gods law:  "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  In other words, if you see someone hurt you should ask them how can I help you.  If you are found down, you would want your government to ask you how can we help you.

Its not hard to understand the basis of Gods law without a particular religion getting into it, now is there?

The religous organization is either for Canada and all it represents as in the Charter OR NOT.

cheers :) majere

sick again, maybe write something on the latest Krieger Supreme Court later tonight.

highly recomend reading

Kate at Small Dead Animals, link in my Favourites, has several excellant writings happenings with comments going on from a Western Political perspective.

Marc Paquette at Meppot has the largest collection of cannabis news, medical or otherwise with his Link also in my favourites.

cheers :)  majere

Iteresting in that the voter stats in the Western Provinces show that the majority do not like the Conservatives???????  This Kind of makes my thoughts on a Centralist Libertarian Conservative NDP Party seem more credable?

cheers :) majere

snipped>

Sun May 29 2005

By DALE SWIRSKY

NOT since the deadlocked sectarian divisions of the 1860s have Canadians faced a political situation as unhealthy as the current one.
In short, we have a government we do not want, and opposition parties that we want even less.

Without question, the Liberals merit punishment at the polls. They have not paid for their sins, and continue to sin by operating in the belief that power can be purchased.

But while Canadians are painfully aware that the Liberals are damaging Canada, they fear the two main opposition groups would harm it even more. Canadians are showing great restraint and wisdom in not punishing Canada (ie. themselves) for Liberal transgressions. History is filled with societies which, in the understandable desire to toss out incompetent governments, turned to worse alternatives, with predictably sad consequences.

The NDP has acquitted itself well in the current "rage TV" parliamentary session. It avoided mudslinging and negotiated more resources for the homeless, post-secondary education, and the environment. Critics howled about a "drunken-sailor spending spree", but the reality is that most Canadians support these measures, and the cost is a mere 0.45 per cent of the budget -- the equivalent of my wife and I spending $13.50 more than our usual $3,000 in monthly expenses. If drunken sailors (who are not to be confused with my wife and I) spent more helping the homeless, education and the environment, what a wonderful world it would be!

Still, while the NDP deserves credit for working to have Parliament work, its anti-business and anti-American tendencies cause many Canadians to eschew it as a potential government. That so many Canadians would never consider voting NDP helps maintain Liberal power. The Conservatives, with 10 per cent more popular support than the NDP, have a more legitimate claim to the title of government-in-waiting, but a stubborn majority of voters seems to be "ABC" -- Anything But Conservative. Most Liberal, NDP and Bloq Québécois voters do not list the Conservative party as their second choice. The biggest factor keeping the Liberals in power is that their main opposition is one Canadians see as an even bigger threat to the country.

The Conservative response to this reality is disappointing. The self-proclaimed party of individual responsibility blames everybody but itself for its failure to attract Liberal voters or win back the 850,000 Alliance and Progressive Conservative voters who have left since the two parties merged.

Instead of articulating why its values and policies are desirable, the Tories rely on attacking those who disagree with them and claim Western victimization when polls show their party is stalled in Ontario.

In the Stronach saga, a pitiful episode for all sides, the Conservatives reached new highs in lows as their MPs labelled her a "whore" and "prostitute." Leader Stephen Harper showed more spit than polish by joining the personal jab-fest.

The claim that "she wasn't one of us" is quite disconcerting for a party with pretensions of reaching out to all Canadians. That Belinda, an outspoken advocate of massive tax cuts, the Iraq war and deeper economic and military integration with the U.S., was deemed insufficiently True Blue -- a condemnation heard long before her defection -- raises real concern about how lock-step with all things "right" one must be to be considered a "real" Conservative in the new party.

If Ms. Stronach, with her money, connections, media celebrity and role in founding the merged party, was marginalized and left powerless to move the Tories to the middle on social issues, what hope is there that Joe and Jane Canadian can? That Tories responded to her defection with venom instead of virtue by promoting their party as a home for moderates is unseemly for a would-be government. And just as unseemly is the rapidity with which the old Reform cry of regional victimization was voiced to explain their own failures east of the Manitoba border.

The Tories and their myth-making media friends would have us believe that a million Ontario voters are really (secretly?) saying the following:

"I agree with Stephen Harper that we should have lower taxes than the U.S. because I envy the $8-trillion American debt, and fondly recall the record deficit Mike Harris left here in Ontario. I also supported sending Canadian troops to Iraq and joining U.S. missile defence because they are our friends. I oppose Kyoto because it does too little to protect our environment, and so we should do even less. A firewall around every province and sovereignty-association for all, I say. Oh, there are so many reasons why I want to vote Tory.

"But, hold on, they're mostly westerners. I'm voting Liberal."

The above absurdity is what many Conservatives eerily seem to believe -- that Canadians really do like their values, and only anti-Western bigotry keeps those east of Manitoba from voting for them.

But, wait a second, even most of those west of the Ontario border don't vote Tory. In the 2004 election, 61 per cent of Manitobans, 58 per cent of Saskatchewanians and 64 per cent of British Columbians rejected the Conservatives.

The difference between support for the Tories in Ontario and Manitoba was a whopping seven per cent. There is no sharp division of support for the Tories at the Ontario-Manitoba border. Rather, the difference in seat totals is due to the unhealthy distortions caused by our antiquated first-past-the-post voting system.

In most western urban areas, there is less Tory support than in Ontario. In the average Winnipeg riding, 72 per cent did not vote Tory. In Regina and Saskatoon, it was 64 per cent. In Vancouver, 80 per cent. In Victoria, 78 per cent. Clearly, Belinda isn't alone in thinking the Tories aren't adequately addressing urban concerns.

So, according to the Conservative line, the majority of westerners are anti-western? Gullibly brain-washed by "eastern" media? Or are there, gasp, substantive reasons to oppose a Conservative government? Until Mr. Harper can convert Canadians to his vision on the core issues, or accomplishes the even harder task of convincing Canadians that he and his party have sincerely changed their core convictions, most will not want the Tories to govern our land.

Which gets us back to the original problem -- the need for an alternative to the Liberals that Canadians might embrace. Sorry as the soap-opera around the Stronach defection is, the more serious and sadder reality is that it underscores how truly unpalatable our current political options are.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2814078p-3258297c.html

unsnipped<

of course the ndp still do not count

How about a Party that takes the small government Policy of the Cons
with the taking care of Social Services from the NDP?

A libertarian Party governing from the Political Center giving the People of Canada a Central alternative?

Can one actually do away with 20 -30 percent of Public Servants and Programs such as funding for any "Arts" and other such non-life-giving-Social Security Programs?

Reduce the Income Tax Department by keeping quiet about a Flat Tax until, if elected?

Remove additional expendatures from Overseas Military Deployments and put that money saved into better military equipment?

Can one re-write the Laws to a level that a High School graduate can fully understand?  Therefore limiting the amount of legal dollars required?

Lawyers and politicians need not apply?  thanks.

Open up every book in the Federal Department, no secrets?

Investigate every Judges and Crowns decision by having every and ALL Court transcripts on the internet in real time as written by the Court Reporter with a very small non-lawyer oversight committee that must be answered to if Ordered, in a Public (arena)?  Of course any Judge or Crown not applying the Law will be arrested and forfiet their Pension as in S. David Frankel Q.C.

Crown Corps that make money are kept?  The remainder sold off?

A Crown Corp that makes a good safe nine thousand dollar air cooled car?

Someone that has crossed the floor and has recieved more than what they have had in their now old Party is stepping into illegal ethics and will be immediately arrested?

Any MP that crosses the floor must sit as an independant until next election?

Senate is elected?

Judges are appointed after Public Arena questioning with each Party allowed one question for each sitting member?

a very durable Crown Corp self money sustaining built five hundred dollar moped for anyone over the age of 15?

Land ownership cannot be removed from a person for any reason other than by a Jury of the persons peers?

Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

and on and on and then on and on.

cheers  :)  majere

the ndp still do not count

Still no surprise to me with the latest Decima Research Poll

Note the single poor women staying away from the NDP and siding with the money spending Libs.  It is not because of Belinda although the media will portray it that way.  Its that to the younger women, the NDP will not get elected and be able to do anything anyway.  So, the next best Party for them is the $Liberals$ as they secretively hope for a better life.

And the NDP still do not count since they do not want to impliment what I have written.  The Cons could use it IF they are Libertarian, but alas they are not for increasing personal Rights and exposing another Liberal scandal as I have fully outlined in earlier posts.

cheers  :)  majere

snipped>

OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservatives continue to slump in voter support despite daily allegations of Liberal sponsorship misdeeds, a new poll suggests.

The phone survey by Decima Research Inc. puts the Liberals ahead with 36 per cent of decided voters compared to 27 per cent for the Conservatives and 21 per cent for the NDP.

In the crucial battleground of Ontario where one-third of Commons seats are centred, the Liberals lead by 16 percentage points.

The separatist Bloc Quebecois has a hammerlock on Quebec with 53 per cent of support, versus 21 per cent for the Liberals, 12 per cent for the Tories and nine per cent for the NDP.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has promised a federal election call within 30 days of a report by Justice John Gomery on the sponsorship scandal. His conclusions are expected in December but could be delayed.

And the minority Liberals may be brought down sooner if the Conservatives force and win a non-confidence vote.

Decima polled just over 1,000 adults across Canada from May 19 to 22.

Polling began two days after Belinda Stronach's stunning defection to the Liberals from the Conservatives. Losing the urban Ontario social moderate was a major blow to the Tories and leader Stephen Harper.

But the survey suggests voter intentions are anything but stable.

Decima CEO Bruce Anderson calls it a "whipsawing effect."

Almost half of those polled, 48 per cent, said they had changed their mind in recent months about which party to support. One in four said they are struggling to decide and have switched loose allegiances repeatedly.

Of those respondents - most are low-income women aged between 25 and 44 - more than one-third now say they'd support the Liberals, 27 per cent would vote NDP and 24 per cent Tory.

Such volatility is normally reserved for election campaigns, Anderson says.

But many voters have been paying close attention to the Gomery inquiry and the political upheaval on Parliament Hill as parties jockey for power.

The resulting uncertainty helps explain sharp swings from one poll to the next, Anderson says.

"These whipsawed voters are different from traditionally defined undecided voters, who often are those with a fairly passive interest in politics.

"Instead, the whipsawed voters are responding actively to events of the day, most notably the Gomery commission, the debate over election timing and the functioning of the House of Commons."

The good news for Conservatives is those voters may well change their minds again.

The Decima survey is considered accurate within 3.1percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

unsnipped<

the ndp still do not count

First the definition of Libertarian.

2 entries found for libertarian. lib·er·tar·i·an    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (lbr-târ-n)
n.

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.

---

[From liberty.]

---

liber·tari·an adj.
liber·tari·an·ism n.

libertarian

n : someone who believes the doctrine of free will [ant: necessitarian]

Now the Cons believe in Small Government but will not explain how they will keep the same Services with fewer Public Servants to maintian them.  We have all heard that corney phrase of trimming the fat etc.  Some Cons might go so far as to say well if we transfer (sell off) a lot of Public Services to the Private Sector it will save money and make the Government smaller.  My take on this is that you as in the Government can pay the Public Servants to run the Program or pay the Private Sector to run them as the Private Sector will be billing the Government.   Or do they want the already overburdened Public to pay out of pocket?  If they say we will give you more money with tax cuts, my question to them is will it make up for the difference exactly if not more, or will I be paying more out of pocket than I recieve in tax cuts?  Would the Government then be saying that they cannot run their Government (Public Servants) to the same efficiency as some business owner?  What does that say about the Governments inteligence level of management?  It sucks right?  So the Leaders cannot manage?

I await the Cons Policies to see how they will exactly impliment a smaller government.  Until then, they cannot use the term Libertarian with Conservative unless its against.

The NDP always state big government.  No NDP Libertarians what so ever.

The Liberals of course Lie.  They will tell you straight to your face that they will cut the fat and turn around and tax you more and of course require even a larger government to impliment and run the higher/newer taxes and or Programs.  No such thing as Liberal and Libertarian. 

On to the Personal Rights.

The Cons before their last Policy Convention was stating that they will take away individual choices such as Same Sex Marriage, Abortion, and in general over-ride any Court Order that does not suit them and THEIR Policies.  This by no means increases ones personal choices and increases ones level of Personal Soverignty.  The Cons during their last Policy Convention made sure not to discuss and Policy Issues that would take away any choices, but they did not discuss any issues that increased ones choices.  How they took a 180 degree turn and expect all to believe is not beyond my cerabal cortex.  They in essence are trying to "look" different to as many electorate as they can.  Whether or not they "think" different is where the "fear of a hidden agenda arises".  Once and if they get elected in as a Majority, will they govern by their "looks" or by their "thoughts"?

The NDP and Libs make it so you have to fight their Lie-ing Crown Prosecutors and Judges in the Courts (shown and proven on some of the earlier entries on this blog)  The crook of the problem is that it takes much time and money to fight to maintain and increase your Rights in the Lib and NDP Courts.  So the NDP and Libs cannot be associated with the term Libertarian in a good way.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that Ontario by voting the Liberals is more Libertarian than the Cons voters in that the Ontario electorate believes that they can at least fight in the Courts for their Rights and have them upheld by the Liberals versus the Conservatives.

The NDP don't count.

cheers :) majere
roger m roeder kitchener ontario canada
a libertarian with WHO to vote for?

I wonder what Kate (Conservative) over at Small Dead Animals will have to say about this?  Her link is in my favourites.
I am going to see if I can embed my comments within this piece and still have room for it.
cheers  :)  majere

OTTAWA -- Christian activists have secured Conservative nominations in clusters of ridings from Vancouver to Halifax -- a political penetration that has occurred even as the party tries to distance itself from hard-line social conservatism.

majere:  They tried distanceing themselves by lip service to the public only, no Party Policies put in place to do so.

At least three riding associations in Nova Scotia, four in British Columbia, and one in suburban Toronto have nominated candidates with ties to groups like Focus on the Family, a Christian organization that opposes same-sex marriage.

majere:  That equals 8 ridings where the Cons have zero chance of winning now.

But organizers say many more will be on the ballot during the next federal election, a feat achieved by persuading parishioners, particularly new Canadians, to join the party and vote for recommended candidates.

majere:  Yes get new vulnerable Canadians looking at one issue instead of all issues and decide for themselves what best suits them and their needs.  Nothing like preying on the vulnerable, eh?  Is this what bible-moralists teaches?

Some Conservatives argue that the selection of a large number of candidates from the religious right is an unfortunate turn for a party that was accused in last year's election campaign of harbouring a socially conservative "hidden agenda."

majere:  So its not hidden now, its out in the open and what does the Cons plan to do about it, if anything, unless they accept it, unless they like it.

"The difficulty, from a party perspective, is that it begins to hijack the other agendas that parties have," said Ross Haynes, who lost the Conservative nomination in the riding of Halifax to one of three "Christian, pro-family people" recommended by a minister at a religious rally this spring in Kentville, N.S.

majere:  According to John Reynolds statement below in this article, its your fault Ross Haynes that you lost, not the Conservative Parties fault.

Candidates who are running on single issues such as opposition to same-sex marriage "probably can't get elected because they certainly don't represent any mainstream population view," Mr. Haynes said.

majere:  Hijack rule number One;  "never boast your a one trick pony until after you get elected, so you can elected".

Others within the party say they are extremely concerned and wished the party leaders had been more involved in the nominations.

majere:  Involved as in dictate down to the Riding versus the Constituents deciding who represents them.

But Tristan Emmanuel -- the Presbyterian minister whose endorsement at the Kentville rally aided the nominations of Andrew House in Halifax, Rakesh Khosla in Halifax West and Paul Francis in Sackville-Eastern Shore -- makes no apologies.

"It's time we stopped apologizing and started defending who we are," he said. "The evangelical community in Canada, by and large, and socially conservative Catholics, are saying we have been far too heavenly minded and thus we have been of no earthly value for far too long, on too many fronts."

majere:  Why apologize for your religion?  You do this religion in your own home and in your own Parish, right?  You don't force it upon people and practice it in other peoples backyards, right?

Mr. Emmanuel runs the Equipping Christians for the Public Square Centre, which teaches people of his faith to become political. He is reluctant to say how many adherents have obtained Conservative nominations because he is afraid the news media will portray the campaign as the infiltration of the party by "right-wing fanatics."

majere:  Toooooo late.

But "it's happening everywhere, especially in urban ridings and in Ontario," he said. "Even in Toronto we have incredible people from the immigrant community who are stepping up to the plate who are just awesome candidates and sincere Christians."

majere:  Everywhere huh, trying to make non-bible moralists paranoid?

Mr. Emmanuel said Christians have been allowed to believe that "to be a genuine citizen of the nation we need to check our religion at the political door. And I'm saying no, that's fundamentally flawed. You may participate in the public square as a religious individual and be not ashamed."

majere:  Why be ashamed of what you do in the privacy of your own home and in the privacy of your own Church?

John Reynolds, the retiring Conservative MP who ran the party's nomination process, said the fact that social conservatives have won his party's nominations is simply a function of democracy.

"I don't believe in appointments and neither does our party, so we get some real battles," Mr. Reynolds said. "People say, 'Can't you do something about these guys running?' and I say 'Hey, you can do something: go out and sign up some more people.' "

majere:  John Reynolds blames the Canadians in the Ridings that elected them to be a Candidate.  So the Conservatives passing the blame to the lowest common denominator.

That said, Mr. Reynolds is offended by attempts to paint the Conservative party as a harbour for religious zealots.

majere:  John, you just admitted that they are now candidates for the Conservatives, your Party.

"There were three dozen Liberals who voted with us on the same-sex thing," he said. "Nobody is going after them and saying, 'Look at these far-right Christians that got into the Liberal Party.' "

majere:  The Liberal Party allowed them to vote their conscince because the Liberals knew that they had the numbers to win the vote anyway.  Why not try to look free and open as a Party when you know your going to win anyway?

If reporters who write about Christian fundamentalists taking over his party were to "insert the word Jew everywhere you've put Christian, do you think they would let you print it?" he asked. "I doubt it."

majere:  If all Christians were  Jewish people since Canada began, I can see it.  Hmmm no Christians in Canada as all Christians are Jews.   Reynolds makes no sense in his logic.

Darrel Reid, the party's candidate in Richmond, B.C., is a past president of Focus on the Family. Cindy Silver, who will run for the Tories in North Vancouver, was the executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship for two years in the 1990s. Marc Dalton in New Westminster-Burnaby has been the pastor of a community church in Burnaby.

Mr. Reid, a former chief of staff to then Reform leader Preston Manning, said it is easy to label a person with his background a single-issue candidate.

"But the reason I entered this nomination contest is because I am really concerned about the direction our government is going," Mr. Reid said.

majere:  Have you Mr. Reid stated exactly how you are going to change the direction?  Are you going to use the "Not Withstanding Clause" to over-ride the Charter and Court decisions in YOUR best interest?  Please explain instead of just lip service.

"In politics, people call you names. And sometimes it's not very pretty, but in the meantime I'm going to talk about the big issues and marriage is one issue out there. I know Canadians are concerned about it, a lot of people are talking about it, but it's just one of a whole range of issues that I went into politics to discuss."

majere:  So Mr. Reid, all you want to do is talk about it?  You also say Canadians are concerned, well that implies all Canadians and I know you can't read everyones mind therefore you are lie-ing.  Does you as a Bible-Moralist subscribe to lie-ing to make your point and pass your point?

Ms. Silver, a lawyer in the federal Justice Department, objects to being labelled a Christian candidate. "That's a form of discrimination," she said. "That's putting them in a class of people and ascribing to them the characteristics of that class without ever giving them a chance to stand on their own merits."

But other candidates clearly relied on their churches to promote their nomination.

Rondo Thomas beat former Conservative MP René Soetens for the nomination in Ajax, on the eastern edge of Toronto. Dr. Thomas is a top official with the Canada Christian College, which is run by Charles McVety, a senior director of the Defend Marriage Coalition.

"The Defend Marriage Coalition engaged in a concerted effort to help pro-marriage candidates become nominated," Dr. McVety said.

"There is a desire to see pro-marriage nominees as candidates right across the country. We know that we have 141 pro-marriage MPs now and our hope is to achieve a pro-marriage Parliament."

majere:  An overt agenda

There has been no specific drive to infiltrate the Conservatives, Dr. McVety said. Some religious Liberals have been nominated as well. But the Tories have taken the lion's share, he said, probably because of the party's opposition to changing the definition of marriage.

Like Mr. Emmanuel, Dr. McVety expresses no uneasiness with his efforts.

"The distortion of the separation of church and state has driven people of faith out of leadership and this is very wrong," he said.

majere:  What a person does in the privacy of his home and Parish should not have any bearing on running the State.  Just like the State should not be saying what one can do in the privacy of their home or religous parish.  I guess the bible-moralists want it both ways.

And now that the government has decided to redefine marriage, faith leaders have been forced to urge their congregations to mobilize politically, Dr. McVety said.

As a result, they "are typically signing up as members of political parties, some of them for the first time in their lives. Many of them even signing up for political parties that they've never voted for in their lives before."

The below snipped shows a fear from the Conservatives supporting the Americans.
I wonder if it has anything to do with one of the highest incarceration rates in the world?
I wonder if it is the "Patriot Act" which takes away more Rights of individuals?
I wonder if it is "big brother" watching over your fence into your backyard and the neighbours are "encouraged" to also?

To the people who see nothing wrong with this, "why don't you go and give a copy of your house and car keys to the local cops and say your welcome in anytime day or night".  Sounds stupid when you put it into context now doesn't it?  Its all about Privacy and Individual Soverignty, NOT about "something to hide".

below snipped>

Quebec — The Conservative Party's inability to overtake the Liberals may have more to do with its agenda than with Stephen Harper, according to a new opinion poll.

A Leger Marketing poll, conducted last week, shows the Liberals have gained an 11-point lead over the Conservatives.

And when respondents were asked whether the Conservatives would fare better under deputy leader Peter MacKay or New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord, two potential leadership contenders, the poll showed little change in the party's support.

"The problem isn't the leader, it is the party and its social policies," pollster Jean-Marc Léger said in an interview yesterday. "The Conservatives have not shown they can be a credible alternative to the Liberals. Despite a full year of minority [Liberal] government, despite the sponsorship scandal, despite the fiery debate over the budget, the Conservatives have not made any inroads across Canada. In fact, they have lost some ground. And the problem isn't Stephen Harper."

The survey showed 38 per cent of decided voters would opt for Mr. Martin's Liberals, 27 per cent for Mr. Harper's Conservatives and 17 per cent for the New Democrats under Jack Layton.

A change in leadership would do little to aid the Conservatives, the poll suggests. Asked whether they would vote for the Tories if Mr. MacKay were leader, 26 per cent of decided voters said yes. Exactly the same number said they would support the party if Mr. Lord were leader.

Regionally, the survey found the Liberals hold a strong lead in Ontario, with 46 per cent support, compared with 29 per cent for the Tories and 19 per cent for the NDP. The Liberals also registered a wide lead in British Columbia, attracting 47 per cent of decided voters to the Tories' 26 per cent and the New Democrats' 22 per cent.

The Bloc Québécois continue to dominate in Quebec, with the backing of 62 per cent of respondents, more than double the Liberals' 24 per cent; the Tories drew 10-per-cent support.

Part of the Conservatives' problem, the survey suggests, may have more to do with the number of Canadians, especially in Quebec and Ontario, who are mistrustful of Mr. Harper's stand on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage as well as his pro-U.S. positions.

Just as important, half of those surveyed said Prime Minister Paul Martin was better able to preserve national unity; only 26 per cent said Mr. Harper would do a better job.

When respondents were asked whether they were "afraid" of Mr. Harper's positions on "abortion, the death penalty and same-sex marriage," 39 per cent said yes and 43 per cent said no. The remaining 18 per cent said they did not know or declined to answer.

The response was almost evenly split when voters were asked whether they were "afraid" of Mr. Harper's "pro-American positions," with 41 per cent saying yes and 42 per cent saying no. The other 17 per cent were undecided or declined to answer.

However, Mr. Harper can take comfort in the fact that 36 per cent viewed him as "more honest" than the 26 per cent who had that opinion of Mr. Martin. Still, a majority, 46 per cent, said Mr. Martin is better able to manage the country, compared with 29 per cent for Mr. Harper.

The poll was conducted between May 19 and May 22 among 1,509 respondents across Canada. The error for a polling sample of this size is 2.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Unsnipped<

cheers :)  majere

and the ndp still do not count

First of all for the Cons, the business owners and those that aspire to be believe in the lower Corp tax rates.  So would any business owner anywhere really, but in the East they of course are a minority.  Therefore minor support for the Cons.

Also in the Cons favour are those who have professions where one deems themselves "comfortable" with their earnings.  Where of course one knows that eventually they will be able to afford a Plasma Flat screen TV in the near future.  No real or percieved money problems.  These people in the East of course would like to have a Conservative Personal Tax Rate Cut which would allow them to purchase that "Flat Screen" just a little bit sooner.  These people I muse are also in the minority.  Therefore minor support for the Cons.

Next the NDP.  Yes there are those that are unfortunate whether it is their fault or not.  There is the working poor stuck in the poverty cycle whether it is their fault or not.  There are those that accept it and those that are "the bitter".  I muse that it is the bitter that jealously want the NDP to come in and raise minumum wage to say for example 10 dollars an hour.  That the NDP would stick it to the percieved wealth of business owners to pay for greater CPP benefits (bottom line dollar amount of cheque).  To me it is the bitter that want the NDP.  To me they are a minority of society.  Therefore very little support for the NDP in the East.

Also within the East there is the sub-class just above the bitter where one gets into the working poor.  Now based on average wages across Canada, with lower average wages in the East, I muse that there are more working poor in the East who are not bitter but would like and hope for some greater government help.  It would have to be just a small portion of this sub-class that vote for the NDP as they have a little of hope in that the Cons and Libs have done nothing for them in the mean time.  These people as voters would be a hard segment to "turn" away from the NDP but can be swung with "promised incentives", fear etc to the Libs or Cons, OR to stay away from the Libs and Cons.  Therefore a few minority votes for the NDP, but the NDP can build upon.

Next the Libs.  The Libs promise the world where hopefully some sticks as at least hope in the minds of the electorate.  The seasonal "road crews" who require Federal Funding to pave or re-surface all summer long so they can collect their UI till next summer.  Seasonal workers in the Pulp and Paper Industry clear cutting (no NDP voters here as NDP despise clear cutting more than their bitterness towards Mr. Irving).  There is not that much seasonal work in the East but with the lower population in the rural areas it keeps money flowing in the smaller towns and villages.  The promise of Liberal Federal "handouts" for Federal seasonal Projects keeps on bringing the voters back to Liberals.  To the seasonal worker voters, its food on the table with UI versus welfare. 

I think its a pretty easy choice to make.  The East follow politics more than Ontario (I lived in various parts of Noval Scotia and New Brunswick for 8 years) for these simple reasons.  Wich Party will help "ME" the MOST.  The Party which listens to EACH and helps the MOST wins in the EAST.  Not the Cons way of we will force you to move to hopefully where there is more work by "the percieved" taking away.

Does this mean that the East is just gimme gimme, no.  The voters in the East look at themselves individually first, which Party will help me personaly, and that is how they vote. 

That folks is the very basis of the very corney line "grass roots".  Individual voters deciding and electing whats best for them, and electing someone who represents the best for them.  Isn't that what democracy is about?  MP's fighting for their constituency.

Will the Cons and NDP understand this?  Nope.

The Cons are portraying themselves as altruistic in that "they know whats best for their neighbour" versus asking the neighbour, "what can I do to help you".

The NDP only portray as the bitter angry poor vote.

cheers  :)  majere
roger m roeder
no pary affiliations as none are willing to allow me my god given rights "do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you"

Jack could be lie-ing.  I wonder if he is going to try to deny and talk his way out of it by stating something along the lines of hoping to get something else out of the Liberals for "the good of the people". 

So far everything he is "for" has no bearing on my wife or I.  All of his Policies have been removed from his website.  None of the Policies would have affected me or any person I know.

I am starting to wonder who is actually helped by the NDP's policies.

cheers  :)  majere

The votes are cast,
much longer the Libs will last.
Only if Jack lies,
to his Conservative ties.

The Budget must pass, for Jacks Lib alliance to last.
The Cons and Bloc, say the Budget is not.
For they control, as majority role.
The Finance Committee, to the Libs pity.

The NDP to the Cons at last.
But Jack might lie, and say not so fast.
The promise I made, might have to be stayed.
For caught in the middle, I must diddle.
Both sides for favours, I will savour.
The Publics light, will shine bright.
On me all will see, a facillatator I to be.
For the good of all, I Jack have gall.

No Jack, if you are Lie-ing about your promise not to support the corrupt Libs after the Budget is passed, or cannot be passed as nulified by the Cons and Bloc, your a total idiot that cannot be trusted.

the ndp do not count

you got blown away in Labrador Jack.  Have you understood any of the overt hints yet?

According to Jack Layton - no.

Jack says he wants the Budget passed, his portion of the Budget then the gloves are off with the Liberals.  A win in Lab will not ensure this.  The Cons and Bloc control the Financial Committee so he is sucking up to the wrong Party, not that it would do anything anyway. 

For the Libs and Cons its just bragging rights now.

The Cons will gain an extra vote  with the NDP unless they the NDP are lie-ing about turning on the Libs when their Budget votes do not pass, will have the NDP caucus voting THEIR way in upcoming votes.  Try to remember that the Corporate Tax removal from the Budget has not taken place, an NDP requirment to support the Libs.  The removal requires an amendment submitted to the Cons and Bloc in the Financial Committee from the Libs and must be passed by the Blocs and Cons - fat chance.  So the NDP if they live up to THEIR word and are not lie-ing have to go against the Libs.

The Libs just gain one extra vote IF the NDP are lie-ing about supporting the Libs. 

Then and only then will  a Lib or Con win in Labrador mean anything.

It all boils down to if the Jack and the NDP are Lie-ing.

I say the NDP still do not count.  They are either lie-ing in which they will not count to the electorate and get pounded by all Parties as lie-ing, or they are telling the truth and will support the Cons from now on.


fragmented muse before wifes Remicade infusion, goddo go.
cheers  :)  majere

When ever I sit with feet on the desk, leaning back thinking of politics I ponder a musing thought.

I wonder why when something happens to a Liberal MP that is bad for the Party why it does not associate itself with the Party in general, or with the Party specifically?

Does Party member solidarity have its weaknesses?

Such as, "the Randy White Tape", where Randy says referring to the Courts, (para) who needs them.

To me its the apparent, real or not, but percieved to be solidarity that belayed the Conservative Party in this matter.  In that, when one person of the Party speaks, that that person represents them all, (in the name of solidarity?)

Is it that the Party represents itself as a strong stand together versus a lose collection of a wide range of opinions which can also be shot down in a public forum as representing good open discussions with-in the Party?

With the last question I can see how solidarity could hurt.

But why not the Liberals?

What lesson(s) if any can be learned?

In the Libs, if someone shoots off their mouth relatively harsh, it is just ignored or at the most spoken to as not reflecting the Party but reflecting a small segment of something whether personall only, or of a population.  "It" is distanced as a Right to speak ones mind, not "held close" to the Party by solidarity.  That the Right to speaks one mind is fought for as a good thing (I hate Martha)

One of the exceptions of the above that comes to mind is Parish.  Only when one really puts ones foot in mouth as in really hurting the Party (foriegn friends not domestic) is the person physically distanced by an ousting from the Party.

Or as I imagine when one severely critisizes the credability of the Party.

If a Party surrounds and fills itself with strictly like minded individuals, does not that Party become fringe to all others?  Does it not become an exclusive club where all others are then different?

If a Party represents openly a minority of "bible moralists"(my term for thought) does this not invoke fear upon the rest who are non-bible moralists?

Does it boil down to building a voter base from the majority of the minority then fear losing the voter base when one must expand their Party Platform to include interests of others?  If so then the Parties confidence in their "many inclusive" Platform is low.  Or how else would or could one explain the fear of losing their Party built originating voter base of what I call the "bible moralists"?

Is it the fear of losing votes or the fear of losing the originating voters respect?  Or is a vote just a vote  who is just a voter?

Is it the fear of not being able to deal with a many varied opinion within the Party?  If so that means to me a "non-acceptance" which subconsciensely is fearful.  Also a Leaders inability to actually lead to the leaders' vision.  Or perhaps the Leaders vision of where they are going is not accepted and they can't dump the Leader yet?

My thoughts are that the NDP and the Conservatives are trapped in their own exclusive voter minorities.  I know, I know the past election results show minority minority.  I am just thinking of how they got there and how to get out, or, what is stopping them,  of course unless they want to stay there (ndp who don't count).

just a ramblic musing on Holiday
cheers  :)  majere

Mood: sick and not feeling any guilt.
Listening to: nascar and the red sox on one tv and garfield the movie on another

Now does this invoke GUILT or what??

I noticed there is several news articles out there stressing this point referring to Ones laziness.

Soldiers who have died so that we have the Right to Vote.

Guilt, guilt, and more guilt.

They died so that we have the choice, they did not die to force us to vote.

Their deaths hopefully allowed us to remian soverign individuals with free choice.  Not forced and controled by "a" government OR by their deaths.  May they rest in peace.

nuff said

cheers :) majere

and to the diminishing ndp, i already told you how to get approximately 50 seats, since you do not listen,  you, the ndp still do not count

A recent Poll out, checked the Ontario numbers, oh oh. More Ontario Bashing coming.  I can feel it in my old bones.

cheers  :)  majere

oh yea, the NDP really don't count.

snipped>

A new poll conducted for CanWest/Global by Ipsos-Reid while the defection of Conservative Belinda Stronach to Paul Martin's Liberal cabinet was taking place, and leading up to the eve of the Federal budget confidence vote, indicates that if an election were held today 34% of decided voters would cast their ballot for the Liberals (up 7 points), 28% for the Conservatives (down 3 points), 17% for the NDP (down 2 points), and 6% for the Green Party (unchanged).

 
In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois continues to dominate with 54% (down 2 points) decided vote support - leading the Liberals (24%, up 9 points) by 30-points.

As for the budget vote scenarios and fall-out, a majority of Canadians want even a narrow budget confidence vote to decide the fate of the government, specifically:

•"If the government loses by one or two votes" - 54% feel it would be necessary to have an immediate election;

•"If the opposition and government tie the vote, and the tie is broken in favour of the government by the Speaker of the house, who is a Liberal" - 60% feel it would be acceptable for the Liberals to remain in power; and

•"If the government wins by one or two votes" - 68% feel it would be acceptable if the Liberals remain in power.

When asked whom they blame most for the problems we're having in Parliament these days, nearly half of Canadians (46%) point to "Paul Martin and the Liberal Party" while only 32% point to the "opposition parties lead by Stephen Harper and Gilles Ducceppe".

And most Canadians (57%) are of the opinion that the "Liberal party does not deserve to be re-elected and it's time for another political party to be given a chance to govern the country" (down 8 points from the 65% who said this in an April 8-10th, 2005 survey). This compares with 37% who believe the Liberals deserve to be re-elected under the leadership of Paul Martin (up 7 points).

But Canadians are divided as to whether the next election will clear the air and get the government in Ottawa back on track: Forty-six percent are confident it will compared to 52% who don't think so.

The National Vote…

According to the most recent Ipsos-Reid survey, if a Federal election were held today, 34% of decided voters would cast their ballot for the Liberals (up 7 points), 28% for the Conservatives (down 3 points), 17% for the NDP (down 2 points), and 6% for the Green Party (unchanged).

In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois sits at 54% support (down 2 points) and now holds a 30-point lead over the Liberals (24%, up 9 points).

Among all Canadians, 12% are undecided, refused to say whom they would vote for, or would not vote if a Federal election were held tomorrow.

Regional Vote Highlights…

•In Ontario, the Liberals are up 14-points and now lead with 46% vote support, followed by the Conservatives (31%, down 3 points), the NDP (17%, down 5 points), and the Green Party (5%, down 3 points).

•In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois now sit at 54% (down 2 points), as the Liberals (24%, up 9 points) trail distantly. The NDP (9%, down 2 points), the Conservatives (7%, down 3 points), and the Green Party (4%, unchanged) are battling for positions further down.

•In British Columbia, the Conservatives (31%, unchanged) and the Liberals (30%, down 2 points) are virtually tied, while the NDP (25%, up 2 points) trails closely - the Green Party attracts 14% support (up 2 points).

•In Alberta, the Conservatives lead with 48% of decided votes (down 11 points), as the NDP (23%, up 12 points) slides into second spot and the Liberals (20%, down 4 points) fall to third. The Green Party sits at 7% support (up 2 points).

•In Saskatchewan/Manitoba the Conservatives are down 12 points but continue to lead with 40% of the decided vote, followed by the Liberals (31%, up 10 points), the NDP (26%, up 3 points), and the Green Party (3%, up 2 points).

•In Atlantic Canada, the Conservatives (41%, up 7 points) and the Liberals (38%, up 3 points) are in a tightly contested race, as the NDP (20%, down 7 points) trails - the Green Party garners 1% of the decided vote (up 1 point).

As part of the survey, Canadians were asked to speculate on three potential scenarios that may emerge from the vote of confidence that will be held in Parliament this Thursday and offer their opinions about what they would consider to be an appropriate outcome for each of these scenarios.

The survey results show that a majority of Canadians want even a narrow budget confidence vote to decide the fate of the government, specifically:

•"If the government loses by one or two votes" - 54% feel it would be necessary to have an immediate election (42% believe it would be acceptable for the Liberals to remain in power);

•"If the opposition and government tie the vote, and the tie is broken in favour of the government by the Speaker of the house, who is a Liberal" - 60% feel it would be acceptable for the Liberals to remain in power (36% feel it would be necessary to have an immediate election); and

•"If the government wins by one or two votes" - 68% feel it would be acceptable if the Liberals remain in power (29% feel an immediate election would be necessary).

Plurality Of Canadians (46%) Blame Paul Martin And The Liberal Party For Problems In Ottawa...

When asked whom they blame most for the problems we're having in Parliament these days, nearly half of Canadians (46%) point to "Paul Martin and the Liberal Party". Thirty-two percent point to the "opposition parties lead by Stephen Harper and Gilles Ducceppe", and only 2% point to "Jack Layton and the NDP".

Among remaining Canadians, 10% say they blame "all" of these groups, 6% blame "none", and a further 5% "don't know".

•Residents of Quebec (55%) are the most likely to blame Paul Martin and the Liberal Party, followed by residents of Alberta (50%), and British Columbia (44%).

•Residents of Saskatchewan/Manitoba (37%) are the most likely to blame the opposition parties of Gilles Duceppe and Stephen Harper, followed by residents of Ontario (35%), and Atlantic Canada (34%).

And Most (57%) Don't Believe The Grits Deserve To Be Re-Elected…

Most Canadians (57%) are of the opinion that the "Liberal party does not deserve to be re-elected and it's time for another political party to be given a chance to govern the country" - down 8 points from the 65% who said this in an April 8-10th, 2005 survey.

Thirty-seven percent of respondents believe the Liberals do deserve to be re-elected under the leadership of Paul Martin - up 7 points from this question's last sounding.

In the regions:

•Residents of Alberta (70%, down 4 points) are the most likely to believe it's time for a change in the ruling government, followed by residents of Quebec (69%, down 2 points), and Saskatchewan/Manitoba (57%, down 3 points).

•Residents of Ontario (44%, up 7 points) are the most likely to believe the Liberal party deserves to be re-elected, followed by residents of Atlantic Canada (43%, up 7 points), and British Columbia (42%, up 16 points).

Canadians Divided On Whether Or Not An Election Will Clear the Air…

Canadians are divided in their opinions after being read the statement "I'm confident that the next election will clear the air and get the government in Ottawa back on track": Forty-six percent agree with this statement (17% strongly/29% somewhat) and 52% disagree (26% strongly/25% somewhat). The remaining 3% of Canadians "don't know".

•Residents of Alberta (54%) are the most likely to agree with this statement, followed by residents of Saskatchewan/Manitoba (50%), and Quebec (50%).
•Residents of British Columbia (59%) are the most likely to disagree with this statement, followed by residents of Ontario (55%), and Quebec and Atlantic Canada (both at 48%).

unsnipped<

Mood: trying to get the energy to do housework
Listening to: the Red Sox

Kate over at     www.smalldeadanimals.com   wrote an excellant piece on the Adscam thefts by the Liberal Party.  I highly recomend reading it.

After reading it twice I began to muse half asleep watching the Red Sox.

How much is a person or a segment of society willing to pay illegally for what they have,  and what would make them do it?

I am sure there was Adscam thefts, illegal of course with our, the taxpayers money.  To me that it is a given for hopefully most people of Ontario.  I am going to wonder why it is Ontario that keeps the Libs in power.

First I look at Ontario, accepting that;

  they are politicaly ignorant as they only barely listen to news sound bites.  Martin with the media is a master of sound bites that are very very short.  Example;  the Conservatives are scary, and, Harper is scary.  Face it, this sticks like glue and I have not nor can I recall any very short repeated repeatable sound bites from the Conservatives with the exception of, "the Liberals are corrupt".

First of all, the word "corrupt" is much more difficult to pronounce and let alone recall versus the word "scary".  People recall easier words easier.  Picture simple people, not University grads, get down to street level to reach the majority of urban voters.  This offsets a lower level of recieving news sound bites due to holding down several jobs or whatever.  Now how much are they willing to pay illegaly to keep the fear of scare at bay?

Ontarios arrogance is their political ignorance.  A "have" Province which has everything to offer times ten.  How can they not want to tell other Provinces whats good for them as Ontario has more culture, education, opportunities, etc, etc.  while the ROC has far less in choices within so many hours of a drive.  A worldly arrogance without leaving the Province.  How much would one be willing to pay illegaly to keep this  arrogant one-upmanship?  Now I happen to think that this arrogance whether based on ignorance or not is a human trait that fuels compitition, but I might be out in left field.  God I am starting to sound corney.

  the Ontarians do fear potentially having Rights removed and believe in the "slippery slope fallacy" that some manipulators use.  How much would one be willing to pay illegaly to prevent this fear?

City dwellers in Ontario vote Liberal, versus some rural areas in Ontario where the Conservatives came very close.  The urban areas do not want to know their neighbours and they definately do not want their neighbours to know them and their business (must be the close proximaty, population density, trying to stake out ones own clearly defined patch etc).  This versus the small town and rural areas where one cannot escape ones neighbours (parodoxically true as one cannot hide within anonimity).  In urban areas one can grow in anonimity where one knows to mind their own busines and live and let live as long as you don't do it in my backyard.  The Conservatives are like, we want to know and at the very least control what one does with Conservative based moral laws.  How much is one willing to make in illegal payments to at least not have the Party that might take that away?

Its all fear based to the unintelligent and/or the politicaly ignorant.  Why Ontario seems to have more, I don't know.

The value of "fear" for Martin - priceless.
The value of ignorant people for Martin - priceless
The value of the unintelligent for Martin - pricelss

Put them altogether and the value to Martin  -


his soul -



not if you ask him though,
a psychopath thinks he is normal.

cheers  :)  majere

So what must Harper do? 
Become a master of very very short sound bites in simple english.
Repeat them until the Ontario news media repeats them.  Repeat them until Toronto taxi drivers are repeating them as conversation starters to patrons.  Then you know you have Ontario.

Jack Layton says he will not support the government IF the Budget is not passed before this summer.  That is fully implimented.  The government stated that their timeline shows that the Budget will pass before the end of THIS session.

Tough luck Jack.

Politics with my dumb Don.  The evening one.

Its the Cons and Blocs call.  Finance Committee is ruled by the Cons an Bloc.  Monty stated that to pass C48 in Comittee will take a huge offering  from the Libs and NDP.

Libs state they will support C48 in the Committee which lives up to their commitment with the NDP, even though we (Libs) don't have the numbers on the Fin Committee.

Monty states that they can send Amendments to the House to split up portions of  C43/C48 to the Cons and Bloc liking.  Whether or not the House votes to approve the potential Con Bloc amendments???

C43 is the Budget

C48 is the NDP spending spree.

Libs must submitt an amendment to in Comittee to remove the Corp Tax Cut to appease the NDP (an NDP requirement for support).  IF the Cons and Bloc approve the Amendment submitted to the Budget Financial Comittee, then it must be submitted to the House for a Vote.  The Cons and Bloc can block that amendment in Comittee.  So the Libs will not live up to their promise to the NDP to remove the Corp Tax Cuts from C43 (the original budget)

Oh what fun the Cons and Block can have.

Now talking about Cadman ...... who cares, I don't want to waste the gray matter.

cheers :)  majere

What is Harper to do?

One thing is or is it several, I don't know.

Come across that there is conflicts in which way the government is running and that the people of Canada should be able to decide for themselves what should be done.

Now your going to get your excuse of, "it costs 300 million dollars to run an election".

To which I reply.

Three hundred million divided by the approximate 30 million population is 10 bucks a person. 

A CANADIANS OPINION ON HOW THE COUNTY IS BEING RUN IS WORTH MORE THAN 10 BUCKS.  A persons opinion is only worth 10 bucks as to how the Country is being run.  Sounds insulting to me.

So I believe, let the people decide if they want the government changed in any way shape or form as to how its being run.

I am insulted that someone would suggest that my 10 dollar opinion on a dysfunctional Parliament COSTS TO MUCH and is a WASTE OF MY, THE TAXPAYERS MONEY.

cheers  :)  majere

the ndp still do not count

Harper, as the pundits are saying, "wanted it to bad", beat the Libs that is.

The media are playing to their biases again, using the ole Delphi Technique to portray.

No matter what it seems, Harper has to be frustrated.  Not only does the media appear to be media biased leaning Liberal, but he has to also fight the Liberals itself as well.

Case in point.

Ask a person if they want to do something that is outside their comfort zone.  Meaning something outside their regular day to day routine.  Its human nature not to want to change from ones comfort zone.

So the media TELLS people they don't want an election by SAYING people don't want an election.  The media are TECHNICALLY correct in that most people don't want to do something not planned and accepted by them.  Of course, then interview on TV people who don't want to change their day to day routine for just one day and go vote.  Then just interview the slow witted who do not want to be "not normal" as in "everyone says so", so these people perpetuate the media driven Delphi driven myth that people do not want to go to an election.  Repeat repeat repeat repeat.  Now get out a survey, which of course will show the above just to re-inforce what the people have been TOLD.

Why not ask the people, "would you change your day to day activities for just one hour for one of your days to vote on the opposition alleged problems that the present government is having"?

How many people would have said sure?
How many people would have understood this?
How many people would have said I guess I will have to check into this?

Versus leading questions such as;

Are you TIRED of VOTING since we ONLY HAD AN ELECTION LAST YEAR?

Do YOU BELIEVE that Gomery should present a FULL report BEFORE an ELECTION? 

Two very very leading examples above.  Tie these questions in with the sound bites that the media shows and you have a media story.

A self perpetuating news making machine.  Step right up and make your own news.  No sense in digging up and researching due diligence for new stories.  Just self perpetuate your own,  over and over and over again, all from one small event or originating sound bite.

anyone who follows the news blindly is blindly following someone else.

cheers  :)  majere