Thursday, January 19, 2006



I mean really who doesn't?? It could not be more funny if Rick Mercer had constructed it.

Strikes me as part of the continuing Conservative Campaign to soften Harper's image. I wouldn't be surprised if this website was schemed in the Conservative war room. Mind you as much as I dislike Harper's policies, we do need to get away from demonizing people because we disagree with them.
i think i just vomitted in my mouth..this is disgusting.
What is disgusting? The bit-of-fluff website or Martin demonizing Harper?
Wow, the garbage that Martin has been spewing the last day and half is actually shocking, he's throwing everything out there hoping something sticks. It's amazing anyone is voting for that clown.

You want to talk about clowns? My Conservative MP Trost sent me (and other constiuents) a pamphlet called "The 9 in 1 solution". Their plan, and I am quoting here is:

Liberal Corruption -- END IT
Gun Registry --- SCRAP IT
Justice System -- RESTORE IT
Health Care -- FUND IT
Agriculture -- SUPPORT IT
Parents Choice in Childcare -- RESPECT IT
Tax Rate -- LOWER IT
Peacekeeping and our Military -- FUND IT.

This is my MP; boiling down complex issues to two word solutions.

That is garbage. A campaign piece like this is not only disrespecful of those issues, it is disrespectful of the intelligence of voters.

This isn't the first piece like this i've received from Trost. It's this 'black & white' simplistic attitude that the Conservatives take that scares the hell out of me. It reminds me of a high school election where the candidate promises to 'stop the spread of homework' -- just saying what the voters want in order to get elected.

Either the Conservatives actually think there are simplisitc answers to complex questions -- which is scary in its own right OR they don't want to express an actual opinion for fear of being challenged on it.

Don't insult my intelligence by telling me your position on taxes is to LOWER THEM. That's like asking if I want "less kicks in the head" -- of course I want less taxes -- tell me how you are going to do and what that means.

Treat me with respect and I might vote for you -- Send me this garbage and expect garbare in return.
the_q, the problem is most people aren't interested in policy discussions. While those solutions are curt, they get to the point.

Would you prefer something like this:

Liberal corruption-- give them a "time out" and take away their Gameboy for two days!!

Gun Registry-- we haven't wasted nearly enough money on this thing, let's throw some more at it!!

The Conservatives have a plan which they've presented freely and in detail for those who want to delve more deeply into policy than two word solutions. You can go to their website and read it... or you can choose to remain uninformed and complain about the black & white nature of two word solutions.

I've gone looking for the Liberal policy statements. They don't exist. Paul Martin is making things up as he goes along. The NDP policies are on their website although, I must admit, I found them confusing.

As long as the pamphlet had the web address to the Conservative platform it's alright to keep things simple on a pamphlet's a pamphlet and doesn't have the room to fully detail the entire party platform. At least Trost is talking policy, Martin yesterday smeared Albertans as a bunch on neo-cons. What a jerk.

fair and balanced, I don't think you are living up to your name. The Conservative Platform is the least detailed of any of the parties, and gives the least clear idea of how they will govern. The Liberals offer a more indepth platform than the Conservatives or the NDP.

None of them are great platforms, but I would say of the three the Liberals demonstrate a clearer understanding of the issues and what can be done about them. Interestingly enough, the Bloc has a more indepth platform than any of them, and they are running not to govern.

The Conservative Plan offers such little insight in to some policy areas it is worrying. The Health Care - FUND IT, promise well if you look at the policy of the Conservatives on their website, all they say is do all the stuff the Liberals agreed to do in 2004, but somehow improve wait times by the end of this year, not next. Offering no more information on how they will acheive moving this goal forward. That is not respecting anyone's intelligence, and it is not really providing something different from the status quo, which is what they are implying.

Obviously the Liberals have a huge leg up in policy understanding because of 12 years in government, so all opposition parties deserve some slack in the policy they present. However, the Conservatives have managed to present a lot of policy this campaign that sounds good, but will likely acheive little, and little scrutiny has come of it.

Do I feel that any party has put forward some great policy this campaign? No. Do I think we are entilled to a little more respect for our intelligence? Yes. Do I promise to stop this annoying rhetorical device of asking myself questions? Maybe.

As for your point about policy on the fly, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have made a bit of policy up on the fly this campaign, the Liberals worse than the Conservatives with that not withstanding clause promise, but Harper's inclusion of property rights, though obviously a long held belief, was obviously added to their platform in the last minutes after the debates. Also the Conservative initally announced no taxes on reinvested capital gains, then later had to clarify that they meant delaying taxes on reinvesting capital gains. And if you can figure out what they have or have not committeed to on Aboriginal policy, please let me know. Monte Solberg is always saying one thing, and Jim Prentice seems to be saying something else.

I have actually read all the platforms, in all great boring detail..okay I skipped the GREEN PARTY. So I feel I am informed.

What I have not received from my Conservative candidate is anything indicating HIS stance on anything. And Keith, his website contains no mention of his stance in any organized fashion. It does include a "weekly commentary" that hasn't been updated since Nov. 25th.

What I am saying is what I would prefer is to read something my MP has written about his stance on issues as opposed to being bombarded with simple-minded party propaganda that addresses no issue at all.

Keith don't tell me that Trost is actually talking policy in that piece -- 6 words does not a policy talk make.

Stand up for Canada? Stand up for youself "Pointdexter" Trost and get your own opinion about something -- oh, and maybe share it with your constituents.
I 'adopted' the F&B name after teasing Shaky about the title of his blog. Another blogger called me F&B and one thing lead to another.

The property rights issue was announced long before the debates but the mainstream media didn't pick up on it as they were too busy looking for more juicy & scandalous tripe to publish.

Have you looked/heard about Democracy Watch's 2006 Report Card? I don't always agree with Duff Conacaher's subjective conclusions but he puts forward a good argument.


Bloc Québécois - C+
Conservative Party - B
Green Party - C+
Liberal Party - F
New Democrat Party - C+

IMHO, the Liberals will say whatever it takes to get elected and from that point forward, they fly from the seat of their collective pants.

Putting aside the scandals and the corruption, the entitlement to entitlement, the broken promises. Think about the legislation they've pushed through in the past dozen years. Most of the laws are designed as "feel good" measures which are impractical (at best) and ineffective. Can you provide a single example of excellent legislation brought forward by the Liberals? I can't... but I can bring up examples of flawed legislation easily and without hesitation.

As for the annoying rhetorical device, ask yourself: what if there were no rhetorical questions?
Post a Comment

<< Home