'Stop creeping' - Macleans.ca
 

‘Stop creeping’


 

The latest clip from the Liberal shop.


 

‘Stop creeping’

  1. Yes, this is why we needed a fourth $300 million election in seven years, is it? An ad about Facebook. lol.

  2. Yes, this is why we needed a fourth $300 million election in seven years, is it? An ad about Facebook. lol.

    • Never thought you of all people would be a 4in7er.

      • He's not keeping up with his HQ memos….'unnecessary election' was last week's meme.

        • Ah yes, this election was necessary so that Liberals can laugh about some stupid Facebook ad. Sorry! lol

          • Craig's list phoned, Dennis.

            Turn in your mouse. You're done.

          • Yeah, well the jerk store called. They're running out of you!

          • Oh yeah? Well your mother wears army boots, so there. Nyah nyah.

          • How long have you been waiting to slip that line in to the Emister ?

          • Wrong answer you two. The correct reply was:

            What does it matter! You're their all time best seller!

      • Why can't people tell the truth about how many expensive elections we've had in the last seven years? Some of you keep telling us how important this all this, but can't even confront basic facts. Is this a cult for you? What is it?

        • The truth? OK, sure:

          2004 – Martin calls election to seek mandate after taking over as PM
          2006 – Harper's non-confidence motion triggers election
          2008 – Harper's declares "parliament not working" and triggers election
          2011 – Ignatieff's contempt and non-confidence motion triggers election

          Does that clear it up for you?

          • Yes, IT'S FOUR ELECTIONS IN SEVEN YEARS!!!

            What is it about this basic fact that has so many of you terrified? God.

          • actually you seem a little…….unhinged

          • But why is it that your friends are lying about not having four $300 million elections in the last seven years? That's OK to you, is it? Wow. Next.

        • In order to be intellectually honest, you have to count the years preceding that first election.

          But then, intellectual anything has never been a CPC stong suit…

          • Why do we have to play your silly game of counting years before an election to count an election? lol. Where do some of you get this nonsense?

          • We do that because under your accounting system, the fake fixed election law that Harper enacted would have forced TWO ELECTIONS EVERY FOUR YEARS on the public.

            Certainly anyone unhappy with the current election call would be apologetic wrt TWO ELECTIONS EVERY FOUR YEARS! Out of concern for your health and your relationship with the PM many of us have sought to shield you from the TWO ELECTIONS EVERY FOUR YEARS LAW that your guy championed.

            Thank goodness it was just a fake law.

    • We all totally understand why you and the Conservative Party and Harper don't want to face the voters. I would be afraid of us too, if I had conducted myself as they have.

      • Actually, I'd be ashamed of this nonsense from Liberals. Four elections in seven years, and all you have is a Facebook ad. lol. Nobody can make this stuff up.

        • No, that's merely the latest. And you're right – the PM's staff reviewing Facebook to see if people are of the right political persuasion before they can attend a "public" meeting? Nobody can make this stuff up.

          • Yes, "merely the latest" in a long list of nonsense nobody cares about except you disingenuous and hypocritical Harper haters who only care about your ideological ambitions, not Canadian democracy.

          • Really? So it's perfectly democratic to break election spending laws? (Yes, I know it's still before the courts, but it doesn't look good for the CPC) It's OK to be the FIRST GOVERNMENT EVER to be in contempt of Parliament? It's OK to hire a criminal as an advisor & let said person lobby the government?

            Harper broke two promises (appointing a senator & letting a Liberal cross the floor without seeking reelection as a Con) as his very first act as PM (surely some kind of record). I could go on; there's a list out there somewhere with over 100 broken promises & boneheaded moves.

            Democracy means the politicians are our servants; they answer to us. ALL MPs should have a voice, as they are our representatives. That means cooperating with the opposition – NOT writing manuals about how NOT to work with committees. Etc, etc. Another few years under Harper, and "Canadian democracy" will be an oxymoron. My Canada does not include Harper-style governments.

    • Dennis_F endorses discrimination based on online profiles… so let`s look in his:<
      http://www.wordhunter.com/custom.html

      McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario

      Four-year Hon. BA, Philosophy

      Graduated with distinction, summa cum laude

      Mohawk College, Hamilton, Ontario

      Two-year Diploma, Advanced Business Administration

      * Above two programs were completed simultaneously, cutting time of study by almost half

      University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario

      BA, Psychology

      No Education in politics. He has no business writing here. GUARDS!

      • I do love the line "Wrote extensively on diverse topics, with little or no research, in order to produce leading edge materials to inform and engage an international readership."

        Actually, what I love is that he thinks writing with little or no research is a positive.

    • This Election wasn't initiated because of an ad about Facebook, as you suggest. I see your selective memory has forgotten, or never accepted that it was about….CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT.

      • If that's what this election is about, then why make up these stupid Facebook ads instead? lol. Seriously.

        • So…….Are you saying the Libs should only be allowed 1 commercial to be viewed all Election? 1 that only mentions the ‘Contempt of Parliament’ charge???

          Harper is the cause of most of these Elections you’re SO against. You really won’t like it when he joins us to the U.S. where they have big Elections every 2 years. Perhaps you should move somewhere that has a Dictator so you don’t have to vote…..But wait…you want Harper to become Canada’s Dictator for life….That sounds like a good reason to have an Election to get rid of Him.

          I seen the Petition over at the Toronto Sun to stop Elections…And You Right-wing nuts are falling for it.

          The More I read…The more I believe Humans deserve to become Extinct on this Planet.

        • Because it was an incredibly boneheaded, anti-democratic action that spells out so clearly the (lack of) values of the Conservatives. There have been many, many such examples, but this one is fresh and directed at average citizens – so it has a good chance to galvanize public opinion.

          I would have thought that even you could figure that one out. Despite the blinders.

    • If you're ticked off at the Liberals scoring points off your party, maybe you should call up your local Team Harper representative and urge them to stop shooting themselves in the foot.

      Cue up 'Yakkity Sax', somebody.

      • This ad is supposed to tick me off, is it? lol

        • I dunno… if I were a Conservative supporter and the Liberals were teeing off on my party's latest own-goal, I might be ticked off. But, you're right, it was an assumption. Plus, the ad was kinda funny, which might have tempered your ticked-offedness.

          Hey, I notice Harper's throwing a couple billion at Quebec as HST compensation. Couldn't he have done that before the government fell? The BQ could have propped him up and avoided this unnecessary election if he had included it in the budget. Interesting development, that.

      • Dammit, now that song is stuck in my head….I HATE YOU GOTTABESAID!

        • OH MY GOD that is funny. Thanks.

    • Since WWII there have been nine Parliaments that survived less than 1000 days.

      One of these was dissolved after a non-confidence vote in late 2005.

      The other was dissolved on the advice of the Prime Minister in 2008.

      Why does Stephen Harper love "unneccessary elections"?

      • Are you trying to say that we haven't had four $300 million elections in seven years?

        What is it about some of you that you can't even deal with basic truth, then turn around and say you care about justice and democracy? If your agenda isn't about the truth, just what is it about?

        • Yes, we have had four $300 million dollar elections in the past seven years.

          There, now someone agrees with your plain statement of fact.

          • FINALLY! HALLELUJAH!

            Now go tell it to some of the zombies on here. Thanks! lol

          • Some of which were Harper's doing. Glad you agree 2008 was unnecessary.

          • Now you have to lie? Now you have to tell us that Harper was the one who forced this fourth $300 million election in seven years? You have to shamelessly blame him for what you wanted, which is for people to endure this nonsense of an election?

          • Now, now Dennis, just go to your happy place.

            Unless . . . oh, gawd . . . this IS your happy place???

            Oh well, To each his own, I suppose

          • Amazing how some of you just can't stand to be put in the wrong. Then you turn around and tell Canadians it's all about democracy. My ass. lol. Next.

          • Learn to read, Dennis. There are classes that can help.

            I specifically said 2008 – you remember that one, don't you? When HARPER said parliament was dysfunctional, said he couldn't work with the opposition (it might have helped if he had actually tried), IGNORED HIS OWN ELECTIONS LAW, and pulled the plug on the 39th?

            Harper was also the guy who sent us to the polls in 2005.

            So if you have an issue about too many elections, keep in mind that two of the last three terms of office were cut short by none other than… who? That's right, Dennis – HARPER!!!

            Before you call someone a liar, READ THE EFFING POST and get your own facts straight.

            Before this election was called, I didn't agree with a lot of what you said, but at least you were worth reading. Now you're just Emily on acid. I'm putting you on ignore until May 3.

          • What in the world does any of that have to do with forcing of our CURRENT fourth election in seven years? I never made any claims regarding the nonsense you're bringing up. Man.

            You have the gall to suggest that I can't read. Not only can you not read, you can't even stick to the topic at hand.

            Man, are some of you desperate, and lacking in basic intellectual skills. Sorry.

          • "What in the world does any of that have to do with forcing of our CURRENT fourth election in seven years?"

            You're right. Let's ignore those other elections. Let's pretend they don't even exist.
            Ok, now….so this is the first election in 7 years!

            You were saying?

  3. Stephen Harper as a stalker….why am I not surprised?

  4. Stephen Harper as a stalker….why am I not surprised?

  5. I like this Liberal war room. Quick, sharp, setting the agenda, even having the confidence to use humour on serious. They are smacking the Conservatives around like hockey pucks.

    This is a great rapid response video to a very serious issue of the Conservatives McCarthyesque spying "Facebook creeping" on ordinary Canadians, banning students and Canadian veterans who have properly registered (registering to see the PM? WTF is that?) and are not causing a disturbance (yet another banned Canadian – the 6th? – came forward today).

    Add ordinary Canadians to the growing list of people and groups Harper is afraid of.

    Way to keep re-enforce the image of you as controlling, contemptuous, anti-democratic, disconnected and unfriendly, Mr. Harper.

  6. I like this Liberal war room. Quick, sharp, setting the agenda, even having the confidence to use humour on serious. They are smacking the Conservatives around like hockey pucks.

    This is a great rapid response video to a very serious issue of the Conservatives McCarthyesque spying "Facebook creeping" on ordinary Canadians, banning students and Canadian veterans who have properly registered (registering to see the PM? WTF is that?) and are not causing a disturbance (yet another banned Canadian – the 6th? – came forward today).

    Add ordinary Canadians to the growing list of people and groups Harper is afraid of.

    Way to keep re-enforce the image of you as controlling, contemptuous, anti-democratic, disconnected and unfriendly, Mr. Harper.

  7. Best of the campaign so far, but I wonder if it requires too much background knowledge to be effective?

  8. Best of the campaign so far, but I wonder if it requires too much background knowledge to be effective?

    • You can't be serious. This ad isn't serious. This election isn't serious.

      Election 2011: Brought to you by people who can't be taken seriously.

      • Let's hope Canadians know better!

        • Canadians aren't as pathetic as our current opposition. Not by a long-shot. We're having our fourth $300 million election in seven years so that Liberals can have a good laugh about a Facebook nonsense ad? This is unbelievable. Oh, but this election was about democracy! I forgot. lol

          • So tell me…

            Why didn't Harper request that the GG ask the opposition parties to see if they could have the confidence of the House?

            You know…to avoid the "wasteful election" and whatnot…

          • I suggest you get a clue about our Parliamentary democracy before making nonsensical suggestions.

          • Tell that to Harper.

          • Why, because he's made it work for over five years now? lol

          • No because he lies about it. lol

          • Dennis… which party is it that has been found in contempt of parliament? Be careful who you call pathetic! Oh and the way the Conservative Party treated Bev Oda was pathetic.

  9. Good response from the Liberal war room!

  10. Good response from the Liberal war room!

    • Wasn't it just

  11. You can't be serious. This ad isn't serious. This election isn't serious.

    Election 2011: Brought to you by people who can't be taken seriously.

  12. Let's hope Canadians know better!

  13. Never thought you of all people would be a 4in7er.

  14. We all totally understand why you and the Conservative Party and Harper don't want to face the voters. I would be afraid of us too, if I had conducted myself as they have.

  15. Hold on a second.

    "Elections in 2011 in Harperland: Brought to you by invitation only."

    There. Fixed. You are welcome.

  16. He's not keeping up with his HQ memos….'unnecessary election' was last week's meme.

  17. Canadians aren't as pathetic as our current opposition. Not by a long-shot. We're having our fourth $300 million election in seven years so that Liberals can have a good laugh about a Facebook nonsense ad? This is unbelievable. Oh, but this election was about democracy! I forgot. lol

  18. Why can't people tell the truth about how many expensive elections we've had in the last seven years? Some of you keep telling us how important this all this, but can't even confront basic facts. Is this a cult for you? What is it?

  19. Ah yes, this election was necessary so that Liberals can laugh about some stupid Facebook ad. Sorry! lol

  20. Actually, I'd be ashamed of this nonsense from Liberals. Four elections in seven years, and all you have is a Facebook ad. lol. Nobody can make this stuff up.

  21. Now you're deliberately misquoting me? Ah yes, but you're on the high ground, aren't you.

  22. Now you're deliberately misquoting me? Ah yes, but you're on the high ground, aren't you.

  23. In the immortal words of Artie Johson, funny but stooopid..

  24. Wow….I'm speechless…..

  25. Wow….I'm speechless…..

  26. I liked the growl.

  27. I liked the growl.

  28. Wasn't it just

  29. Dennis_F endorses discrimination based on online profiles… so let`s look in his:<
    http://www.wordhunter.com/custom.html

    McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario

    Four-year Hon. BA, Philosophy

    Graduated with distinction, summa cum laude

    Mohawk College, Hamilton, Ontario

    Two-year Diploma, Advanced Business Administration

    * Above two programs were completed simultaneously, cutting time of study by almost half

    University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario

    BA, Psychology

    No Education in politics. He has no business writing here. GUARDS!

  30. There have only been 3 elections in the past 10 years.

  31. So tell me…

    Why didn't Harper request that the GG ask the opposition parties to see if they could have the confidence of the House?

    You know…to avoid the "wasteful election" and whatnot…

  32. Gee, will Aaron be posting this little tidbit??

    Ignatieff orders probe into candidate who called natives ‘featherheads'

    "Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has ordered an immediate investigation into one of his Quebec candidates, the founder of a white-rights group."
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta

  33. Craig's list phoned, Dennis.

    Turn in your mouse. You're done.

  34. Gee, will Aaron be posting this little tidbit??

    Ignatieff orders probe into candidate who called natives ‘featherheads'

    "Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has ordered an immediate investigation into one of his Quebec candidates, the founder of a white-rights group."
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta

    • That Ignatieff has a Con candidate instead of a Liberal one?

      Probably. He'll probably post it when the guy gets turfed too.

    • Don't Liberals screen their candidates? How embarrassing.

      • Ignatieff's reaction is much beter than Harper's typical reaction to such news.:

        ",,,Ignatieff said if the accounts are true, the remarks are utterly unacceptable.

        "They do not reflect Liberal values. As soon as I heard that these remarks were made, or had been made in the past, I ordered an immediate inquiry. As soon as the facts are back we will take immediate action."
        http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/s
        "I was shocked. I was shocked. If he really said that, it's not possible to remain a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada," he said.

        Ignatieff said candidates have the right to defend themselves."

        • Oops, added the link in the wrong place.

        • I admire your determination to turn lemons into lemonade.

          • So you disapprove of looking into the matter before reacting?

          • Are you joking, Larry? Where did I say that? How can that possibly be inferred?

      • sadly true,
        If you don't vet, the campaign will.
        an earlier recent example of this kinda thing, bro
        "The man nominated Monday night to stand as the federal Conservative Party candidate in a Vancouver-area riding says he was forced by the party to step down following revelations about his personal finances."
        oh, and then there is the guy you are stuck with:
        "The Harper government refused opposition calls Friday to remove a Tory MP who helped transfer funds to an offshore account that was allegedly used to evade taxes."

        • Your second mis-quote is another classic example of the CBC running a story without all the facts – thanks for reminding me!!

          • CBC along with G&M broke the story Nov. 4, but CBC kept running it for days. It was such a non-issue, yet I forgot the idiots in QP demanding Saxon step down. Thanks again, lol!!!

          • I thought Sun Media were gospel?

          • Wouldn't know as I don't read it.

    • And herein lies a clear distinction between Ignatieff and Harper. Ignatieff hears a candidate has acted improperly, heacts quickly to investigate and, once the evidence shows the candidate is unfit, has him removed from the Liberal slate.

      Harper, on the other hand, refuses to be accountable for anything; it's always his staffers' doing; not his problem. Which, given his reputation for hands-on control, sounds even more like BS than it would from most.

      Harper: the man who campaigns on acountability. What a joke! Give us instead someone who clearly demonstrates accountability and a willingness to seek out facts and to act on them.

  35. That Ignatieff has a Con candidate instead of a Liberal one?

    Probably. He'll probably post it when the guy gets turfed too.

  36. This Election wasn't initiated because of an ad about Facebook, as you suggest. I see your selective memory has forgotten, or never accepted that it was about….CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT.

  37. If you're ticked off at the Liberals scoring points off your party, maybe you should call up your local Team Harper representative and urge them to stop shooting themselves in the foot.

    Cue up 'Yakkity Sax', somebody.

  38. Amazing how some people want to piss on, then insist it's raining.

    2004, 2006, 2008, 20011

    Seven years, four elections.

    If this election isn't about the truth, then just what in the world is it about?

  39. Amazing how some people want to piss on, then insist it's raining.

    2004, 2006, 2008, 20011

    Seven years, four elections.

    If this election isn't about the truth, then just what in the world is it about?

    • You are counting an election at both ends of your timeframe; this is not a useful way of finding the rate of elections. This method of counting is only useful if you want to exaggerate how often elections are happening.

      3 elections in the past 10 years is equally true; though it does not count elections at either end of the timeframe I have chosen. Between Apr 6, 2001 and Apr 6, 2011 there were only elections in 2004, 2006, and 2008.

      No one in the US would complain that the election in 2012 is unnecessary because it would be the second election in 4 years.

      It would be better to claim the past three parliaments have lasted 7 years.

      • So we haven't voted four times in the last seven years? Is this what you Gomers are seriously trying to tell us here? lol. Oh my god.

        I'm sorry, but Canadians aren't buying this over-zealous rubbish. They know when they're being pissed on.

        • "So we haven't voted four times in the last seven years?"

          In the last seven years there have only been 3 elections; 2004, 2006, 2008. I don't know how you would have voted 4 times; are you implying that you have already voted for the election this year?

          • Excuse me. So you agree that we will now be voting in our fourth $300 million election in seven years? Are you FINALLY admitting to this basic fact?

            Heck, if it's so hard to pull the truth out from the opposition on something like this…..

          • It's misleading to measure from end to start for duration between elections. A more accurate statement would be to say this is the fourth election in 11 years since the 2000 election.

          • AHAHAHAHAHA!!!

            You're the one trying to deny the slam-dunk fact that we have had four $300 million elections in seven years, but I'M the one who's doing the misleading?

            Oh, you're something alright. And shameless, too!

          • I have denied no such thing Dennis. I'm merely stating that that fact doesn't really tell the tale. When Harper caused the 2008 election, that was the third election in four years by your measure, which frankly has more shock value. This Parliament has lasted 2.5 years, which is typical for minorities.

            I'm giving an untorqued view of the facts, you're repeating a misleading statement ad nauseum. I'd say you're the shameless partisan shill.

          • So if you agree that we're having our fourth $300 million election in seven years, why are you bothering me? God. Get a life or something. lol. Next.

          • Do you also agree that it's our fourth election in 11 years, and that Harper caused the third election in four years in 2008?

            I'm 'bothering' you because you're trying to mislead people. I don't particularly mind elections. I'm surprised anyone gets particularly exercised about having them.

          • How can I be misleading people if you agree that IT'S OUR FOURTH ELECTION IN SEVEN YEARS!

            Is this some kind of a drug cult? Is that why some of you are engaging in these absurd agitations? Wow!

          • Do you not understand the difference between a misleading statement and an untrue statement? The statement is true, but misleading. It makes it sound like each parliament was 7 years/4 in length, ie, less than two years. However, each parliament since 2004 has lasted 7 years/3 each, which is over 2 years each and normal for minority parliament situations.

            I'm sure you're familiar with the cliche 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'? Statistics can be true but misleading in their interpretation. You haven't done me the same service of responding to my sincere questions. I've been sincere in my responses to you.

          • How in the world is it misleading to state a fact? Four elections in seven years. God. When some of you don't like a fact, you never stop. Man.

          • More to the point, this argument about the number of elections is stupid. There are plenty of good attacks that you shouldn't have to rely on stupid ones.

          • If this truth is so stupid, why are so many of you desperately trying to stop me from using it? lol. It's not going to work. You've only motivated me even more. Thanks!

          • I'm guessing that this was a rhetorical question (as most of your questions are), but I'll answer it anyway: because the (true) statement is misleading.

            You still haven't answered my questions.

          • How can a baldly true statement be false? Only to zealots like you who can't stand the truth. You forced this election. It's ludicrous. It's backfiring on you. And you can't stand it. Terrific. Live with it.

          • Andrew didn't say a true statement was false. He said " the (true) statement is misleading".

            There is a difference between false and misleading.

          • I didn't do anything, Dennis.

            I didn't say the statement was false, Dennis.

            I think you need to take a few deep breaths and read what I wrote again.

          • Correction: How can a baldly true statement be MISLEADING, for crying out loud? Because you can't stand to read or hear it? lol. God, some of you.

  40. I suggest you get a clue about our Parliamentary democracy before making nonsensical suggestions.

  41. Ted, you seem more fired up than usual. Must be election fever! I have to agree that the Liberal war room has been very effective at pouncing on stuff like this and milking it for all it's worth.

  42. Since WWII there have been nine Parliaments that survived less than 1000 days.

    One of these was dissolved after a non-confidence vote in late 2005.

    The other was dissolved on the advice of the Prime Minister in 2008.

    Why does Stephen Harper love "unneccessary elections"?

  43. (CBC you know that left wing media outlet for the Liberals) along with Mr Ignatieffs immedialte response.
    He didn't duck the question, has started an investigation and if the allegations are true the candidate will be removed.
    Didn't use the "Had I known" defense or blame it on party organizers. That's how you show leadership

  44. I do love the line "Wrote extensively on diverse topics, with little or no research, in order to produce leading edge materials to inform and engage an international readership."

    Actually, what I love is that he thinks writing with little or no research is a positive.

  45. Dennis… which party is it that has been found in contempt of parliament? Be careful who you call pathetic! Oh and the way the Conservative Party treated Bev Oda was pathetic.

  46. (CBC you know that left wing media outlet for the Liberals) along with Mr Ignatieffs immedialte response.
    He didn't duck the question, has started an investigation and if the allegations are true the candidate will be removed.
    Didn't use the "Had I known" defense or blame it on party organizers. That's how you show leadership

    • Because he did know and was okay with it as long as remained under the radar.

      Very similar to the coalition pact Mr. Ignatieff's signature is on the nomination papers.

      He has got to signing everything that is put in front of him.

      • He did? Really? What tells you that? Do your crystal balls read minds too now?

  47. Philosophy? Maybe that's why he's so good at dissembling. Although, it means he's educated so most be part of the liberal elite.

  48. So you accusing Harper of being "creepy" means that you can be even creepier? This is what this fourth $300 million election in seven years is all about to some of you, is it? This is your conception of democracy, yes? Ugghh.

  49. Don't Liberals screen their candidates? How embarrassing.

  50. Yeah, well the jerk store called. They're running out of you!

  51. If that's what this election is about, then why make up these stupid Facebook ads instead? lol. Seriously.

  52. It means I can use already obtained knowledge or the expertise of others, on a dime, if necessary, stupid. Personal attacks are what this election is now about, eh? Keep it coming, Gomers. Keep it coming.

  53. Oh yeah? Well your mother wears army boots, so there. Nyah nyah.

  54. Because he did know and was okay with it as long as remained under the radar.

    Very similar to the coalition pact Mr. Ignatieff's signature is on the nomination papers.

    He has got to signing everything that is put in front of him.

  55. How long have you been waiting to slip that line in to the Emister ?

  56. This ad is supposed to tick me off, is it? lol

  57. Are you trying to say that we haven't had four $300 million elections in seven years?

    What is it about some of you that you can't even deal with basic truth, then turn around and say you care about justice and democracy? If your agenda isn't about the truth, just what is it about?

  58. Wrong answer you two. The correct reply was:

    What does it matter! You're their all time best seller!

  59. If those charges were nearly as serious as all of you claim, then why the need for these stupid Facebook ads? lol

  60. Personal attacks are what this election is now about, eh?

    From a Conservative's perspective, yes! it is!

  61. Personal attacks are what this election is now about, eh?

    From a Conservative's perspective, yes! it is!

    • Then why is it that some of you zealots are doing precisely such on these boards? Is this some kind of an important cult for you? Do you have to go after threats? Again, what is it?

      • Maybe I'm just more of a Conservative than you are. Have you thought about that?

        • Or maybe you're a leftist smear artist. I can only go by what you do on here. Sorry.

          • Hey Dennis. I've been trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. It doesn't seem you are similarly motivated. I forgot that I shouldn't feed trolls, and you've just been trolling. You denying the undeniable fact that there have been four (count'em four 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2011) elections in the period since the day after the 2000 election seals it. You have a severe mental deficiency that prevents you from being a reasonable person, or you just like to argue that day is night.

            I hate to be an enabler of your mental illness, so I'll try not to engage you in reasonable conversation in the future.

  62. true, and since we're agreeing so much lately,
    I'll see your milking metaphor and up you one:
    There ain't no combustion, if there ain't no fuel!
    ;-)

  63. Tell that to Harper.

  64. true, and since we're agreeing so much lately,
    I'll see your milking metaphor and up you one:
    There ain't no combustion, if there ain't no fuel!
    ;-)

  65. Then why is it that some of you zealots are doing precisely such on these boards? Is this some kind of an important cult for you? Do you have to go after threats? Again, what is it?

  66. Hey, I'm going to take that as a compliment!

  67. Hey, I'm going to take that as a compliment!

    • I was mostly joking, but I will concede that you are skilled at evading questions, twisting the positions of others, and using logical fallacies to convincing effect. In other words, a master debater!

  68. this is why…

    The status quo is just not tenable, for anybody,” says Peter Russell, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto and one of the country's most respected political scientists. But a Conservative majority would be worse. “It would send a bad message about Parliamentary democracy if a government brought down for contempt, very serious contempt, on the finding of a Speaker, is rewarded with a majority. I think it would encourage Mr. Harper and maybe those after him to be contemptuous of Parliament. And then I think we're in real trouble.”
    http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blog-central/can

  69. Ignatieff's reaction is much beter than Harper's typical reaction to such news.:

    ",,,Ignatieff said if the accounts are true, the remarks are utterly unacceptable.

    "They do not reflect Liberal values. As soon as I heard that these remarks were made, or had been made in the past, I ordered an immediate inquiry. As soon as the facts are back we will take immediate action."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/s
    "I was shocked. I was shocked. If he really said that, it's not possible to remain a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada," he said.

    Ignatieff said candidates have the right to defend themselves."

  70. this is why…

    The status quo is just not tenable, for anybody,” says Peter Russell, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto and one of the country's most respected political scientists. But a Conservative majority would be worse. “It would send a bad message about Parliamentary democracy if a government brought down for contempt, very serious contempt, on the finding of a Speaker, is rewarded with a majority. I think it would encourage Mr. Harper and maybe those after him to be contemptuous of Parliament. And then I think we're in real trouble.”
    http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blog-central/can

    • Ah yes, the university professor knows better than voters do as to what is and what isn't good about our democracy. Terrific.

      • The failed lobbyist and lifer politician knows better what kind of government we want? More people prefer a Lib-NDP coalition to another CPC government.

        • It's obvious you hate the guy, but the rest of us elected him prime minister twice. You say you want democracy, yet here you are sneering at our democratic choices. It's not democracy you want. It's your way you want. And you get outraged when you don't get it. Outraged.

          • I'm mocking your rhetoric. I thought that was obvious.

          • Oops, my apologies – I accidently voted Dennis's latest post up instead of down.

          • Now go wash your thumb

          • LOL!

  71. Actually, the way you have it written, it means you can pull crap out of your arse. And while undoubtedly true, this probably isn't what you were going for.

    Also, if you're serious about writing, you may want to watch out for passive voice.

    Might I suggest "Produced leading edge materials to inform and engage an international readership by writing extensively on diverse topics based on currently available knowledge."

  72. Actually, the way you have it written, it means you can pull crap out of your arse. And while undoubtedly true, this probably isn't what you were going for.

    Also, if you're serious about writing, you may want to watch out for passive voice.

    Might I suggest "Produced leading edge materials to inform and engage an international readership by writing extensively on diverse topics based on currently available knowledge."

  73. Oops, added the link in the wrong place.

  74. The truth? OK, sure:

    2004 – Martin calls election to seek mandate after taking over as PM
    2006 – Harper's non-confidence motion triggers election
    2008 – Harper's declares "parliament not working" and triggers election
    2011 – Ignatieff's contempt and non-confidence motion triggers election

    Does that clear it up for you?

  75. Maybe I'm just more of a Conservative than you are. Have you thought about that?

  76. Ah yes, the university professor knows better than voters do as to what is and what isn't good about our democracy. Terrific.

  77. why is OK in your books to insinuate that Harper is a stalker? If this were a CPC ad about Iggnatieff you'd be crying to the heavens that it was a backhanded attempt at making him look like a pedophile. Double standard as usual.

  78. Is Iggy going to have the RCMP check the Liberal White Supremest out? Right now it looks like a Liberal "white" wash. All Liberals are "white: washers.

  79. In other words, you don't have a response. Thanks. lol. Next.

  80. Is Iggy going to have the RCMP check the Liberal White Supremest out? Right now it looks like a Liberal "white" wash. All Liberals are "white: washers.

    • Since it's in the media and Ignatieff has talked about it, they are clearly not atempting a Harper-stykle coverup. Do you believe Harper when he says he didn't know about all of Carson's fraud convictions? Is he lying or just incompetent?

      • Do you believe 'Ignatief' when he says he didn't know about 'André Forbes'? Is he lying or just incompetent?

    • Is Iggy going to have the RCMP check the Liberal White Supremest out?

      No. Relying on the RCMP for political cover is the perogative of the party in power. Opposition parties have to rely on thier own judgements and take responsibility for them. No need for me to point out the contrast to the current gov't, I'm sure.

    • He's going to kick him off the ballot – how is that a whitewash?

  81. We are probably all in an enemies list section or some such thing of the Conservative CIMS, Constituent Information Management System.:

    "…CIMS is used not only to track voter allegiance in a given riding — something every political party attempts — but also a host of other data gathered in the course of an MP's constituency office duties.

    "Any time a constituent is engaged with the member of Parliament, they get zapped into the database,'' Turner said in an interview. "It's unethical and it's a shocking misuse of data…"
    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20071018/tory_p

  82. In order to be intellectually honest, you have to count the years preceding that first election.

    But then, intellectual anything has never been a CPC stong suit…

  83. sadly true,
    If you don't vet, the campaign will.
    an earlier recent example of this kinda thing, bro
    "The man nominated Monday night to stand as the federal Conservative Party candidate in a Vancouver-area riding says he was forced by the party to step down following revelations about his personal finances."
    oh, and then there is the guy you are stuck with:
    "The Harper government refused opposition calls Friday to remove a Tory MP who helped transfer funds to an offshore account that was allegedly used to evade taxes."

  84. He did? Really? What tells you that? Do your crystal balls read minds too now?

  85. We are probably all in an enemies list section or some such thing of the Conservative CIMS, Constituent Information Management System.:

    "…CIMS is used not only to track voter allegiance in a given riding — something every political party attempts — but also a host of other data gathered in the course of an MP's constituency office duties.

    "Any time a constituent is engaged with the member of Parliament, they get zapped into the database,'' Turner said in an interview. "It's unethical and it's a shocking misuse of data…"
    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20071018/tory_p

    • The Liberals have a similar system called Liberalist that is based on a system acquired from the Democrats in the US. You can find it here: http://liberalist.liberal.ca/

      Painting us all as 'enemies' in a big scary database seems a little paranoid. The reality is that all parties use software like this, not only in Canada, but around the world, and it is part of how elections are managed these days. The only way to make sure that you are not in these DBs is to make yourself as politically disengaged as possible, and that is a much worse thing to happen.

      • I expect you are correct that they all have databases; but recall that Harper's communications budget went up a lot and I wonder how much is in the CIMS one. I think Haprer's reason for ending the mandatory long-form census was because Stats Canada keeps the information confidential, and it provides data to Canadians without any partisan favour. I'm sure Harper much prefers his CIMS to have all that information, because he feels no ethical concerns over people's privacy, and because he is then able to deny the information to other people.

        • I suspect you are right, but possibly for other reasons. I recall the Conservatives were reported to have put a lot of resources into CIMS, and it payed back big-time in terms of finding donors in voters, and I don't recall hearing that the other parties put as much money into their systems. Having said that, the Liberal system is supposed to be as good (which they will tout as a good thing, since their old system was nowhere near as successful as the CPC's), but the new system was acquired from the Dems in the US – seemingly getting a grade A system at a fraction of the cost.

          On your second point, I'm not sure that the decision to scrap the census was related to the development of voter databases, but it is an interesting thought. If the political parties can all use their resources to build databases that give an amazing amount of information about potential voters, and harness that information more easily than their previous sources of data (I'll assume Statscan was a significant 'default' data source), then maybe its not quite as critical to have the long census as we all would have thought. This of course assumes that one can build an accurate, useful database without inputs from Statscan, which is what I have doubted all along.

  86. Or honesty, come to that…

  87. So…….Are you saying the Libs should only be allowed 1 commercial to be viewed all Election? 1 that only mentions the ‘Contempt of Parliament’ charge???

    Harper is the cause of most of these Elections you’re SO against. You really won’t like it when he joins us to the U.S. where they have big Elections every 2 years. Perhaps you should move somewhere that has a Dictator so you don’t have to vote…..But wait…you want Harper to become Canada’s Dictator for life….That sounds like a good reason to have an Election to get rid of Him.

    I seen the Petition over at the Toronto Sun to stop Elections…And You Right-wing nuts are falling for it.

    The More I read…The more I believe Humans deserve to become Extinct on this Planet.

  88. I admire your determination to turn lemons into lemonade.

  89. No, that's merely the latest. And you're right – the PM's staff reviewing Facebook to see if people are of the right political persuasion before they can attend a "public" meeting? Nobody can make this stuff up.

  90. Why, because he's made it work for over five years now? lol

  91. Yes, IT'S FOUR ELECTIONS IN SEVEN YEARS!!!

    What is it about this basic fact that has so many of you terrified? God.

  92. Why do we have to play your silly game of counting years before an election to count an election? lol. Where do some of you get this nonsense?

  93. You can't even tell the truth about how many elections we've had in the last seven years, yet you have the gall to call others dishonest? To say this election is necessary? To accuse Harper of being in the bad? Unbelievable.

  94. It's clear from his postings here that Dennis is not very professional.

  95. You can't even tell the truth about how many elections we've had in the last seven years, yet you have the gall to call others dishonest? To say this election is necessary? To accuse Harper of being in the bad? Unbelievable.

    • You have to start counting the years from the BEGINNING of Chretien's last term (where Martin took over), if you are going to be honest about the time span; either that, or use your crystal ball and determine how long the next government will be in power. You see, the years ACTUALLY IN OFFICE have to count somewhere.

      It's like that whole millenium, century or dacade thing; people think the one tthat ends in zero is the first year of the new whatever, when it is really the last one (there was no Year Zero, so th first decade was years 1-10; century years 1-100; etc).

      I can see how some people who don't stopto think about these things can get confused, but I'm far from the first person to explain this to you, Dennis. So you're either slow, or deliberately fudging the numbers.

      • Why in the world do we have to use your made up rules about how we count elections? God. We've had four in seven years. You can't stand this. So, you make up this bizarre nonsense to counter it. It's dismissed as nonsense, and you can't stand it. You have to persist in a lie because a truth is too much to deal with.

        But that's not my problem. I didn't force this fourth $300 million election in seven years. You people wanted it. You're going to have to explain it. And, obviously, so far you failing miserably. Miserably.

        • Seems like you're the one who can't stand it. I haven't heard a single non-partisan complain about this, and even most Tories have stopped by now.

          It's equally true that this is the fourth election in 11 years. It's equally true that half those elections were caused by Stephen Harper. It's most important that none of this is important. We've got an election, so let's focus on issues that matter.

          • It's equally true that this is the fourth election in 11 years.

            lol, how can both statements be equally true? You're talking out of your ass now. You're making things up. You can't stand people saying the truth about this. Up is down. Left is right. Four elections in seven years is no longer four elections in seven years.

            This is why we're having our fourth election in seven years, is it?

            Congrats. lol. Next.

          • "how can both statements be equally true?"

            Quite easily. Take some deep breaths, and then try reading Andrew's comment again.

          • In other words, you can't explain it, either. lol. Next.

          • The period beginning immediately after the 2000 election and ending with the 2011 election is 11 years (10 1/2 more accurately). During that time there have been 4 elections.
            It's not hard. I think that if you had tried the breathing exercises you might have been able to figure this out without my help.

          • You agitators on here want to go all the way back to 2000, which was our fifth election in 11 years. Right? Why? If this election isn't about the truth, then what in the world is it about? Wow.

          • No. The 2000 election was not the fifth in 11 years.
            I don't want to go all the way back to anything. I was trying to help you understand some very simple math. When you asked, ""how can both statements be equally true?" , I thought there was a chance you'd like the answer.

            Here's some more interesting math:
            What are the chances that everytime I see one of your freshly posted comments it's rated +1, despite the fact that it almost always ends up with a net negative. I'd think the odds that the first person to rate your comment almost always gives it a + despite the majority of raters almost always giving you – would be incredibly low.
            What do you think is going on there, dennis?

          • Elections in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2011.

            Four in seven years.

            This is a fact that some of you so desperately want to lie about because you can't justify the expense and nonsense otherwise.

            Next.

          • Yes, and it's also the 4th in 11( 10.5) years. You understand that now, don't you?
            And I haven't lied about anything.
            Speaking of 2008, would you like to share one of your choicer outraged comments from that year, when Harper triggered the 3rd election in 4 years? That's obviously a much greater frequency than 4 in 7. You must have been apoplectic!

          • So you're not even disagreeing that it's "also" the fourth in seven years. So your sole purpose on here is what? Nonsense – just like this election. We're having this election to indulge this nonsense. Thank you.

          • Why would you assume I have only one purpose?
            You must be relieved that Ignatieff has cut the frequency of elections in this country almost in half from Harper's non-stop 3 in 4 years, to a much more reasonable 4 in 7.
            Have you emailed him to express your gratitude?

          • You now think four elections in seven years is "much more reasonable." At least you've stopped lying about the fact that it's not happening. I guess that's a start.

          • More reasonable than the 3 in 4 years we had after Harper triggered the last two, if election frequency is your issue, which I gathered it was. Are you not upset about frequent elections?
            What did I lie about "not happening"?

          • Time to call it quits Lenny. He's completely lost it. We should all put him on "ignore".

  96. It's clear from his postings here that Dennis is not very professional.

    • I see a very lucrative grave digging career ahead of him.

    • Unbelievable how desperate some of you are on here to lie about and attack political opponents. Then you suggest it's Harper who has problems. Whatever!

      And I don't think Canadians are buying it. They see the desperate tactics, too.

  97. Yes, "merely the latest" in a long list of nonsense nobody cares about except you disingenuous and hypocritical Harper haters who only care about your ideological ambitions, not Canadian democracy.

  98. I'm not insinuating anything, I'm saying it outright.

    He's following people via their facebook page, and listing them as a 'security risk'.

    When your PM starts doing things like that, you should be worried.

  99. I'm sorry, but you cannot blame the opposition for 4 elections in 7 years. Harper forced one of these when he was in opposition and didn't worry about calling another one in 2008 (against his own bill). When this one was over, he said he would work with the opposition….that means giving the opposition some things they ask for. Such as how much bills before parliament were going to cost.

    In other words, we are spending 300 million because Parliamentarians were no longer willing to let Harper spend billions of dollars without oversight. (they don't trust him)

    For example, Harper says the F35s will cost 75 million per and the Americans say more like 110 for the cheapest model, at the end of the production cycle. How can the opposition give him permission to spend when they don't trust the numbers? The first 10 F-35s that we overpay for will cover this election, the last 55 will pay for the next 5 elections. (my opinion is that we should be buying the upgraded F18s super hornets for 55million each, they are comparable with our current infrastructure AND they can operate in the arctic, unlike the F-35s)

    AND if 300 million was such a big deal, why didn't harper work harder to keep our base in UAE? (cost to move was at least 300 million, and if the rumour mill is correct, a seat on the security council)

    If 300 million was such a big deal, why didn't Harper promise to give Quebec 2 billion for HST before the election was called instead of now???.

    IF 300 million was such a big deal to Harper, why didn't he work with the parties to show them the costing of his bills?

    If 300 million is such a big deal, why has harper run the largest deficit in Canadian history….shouldn't he have kept his word and not ran a deficit. (I really am against deficits and am bothered because the only ones that seem to not run them are liberals-I was hoping that the cons would live up to their name and not ruin our finances for political gain.)

    In a democracy, when the government loses the confidence of the house, they MUST come back to their bosses (US) and get a new mandate. IF that costs 300 million, it costs 300 million. That is the cost of doing business.

    Elections are unnecessary in China, not Canada. If you want to complain about spending 300 million to have an election, please move there. I would like to keep our democracy thank you.

  100. Your second mis-quote is another classic example of the CBC running a story without all the facts – thanks for reminding me!!

  101. Because it was an incredibly boneheaded, anti-democratic action that spells out so clearly the (lack of) values of the Conservatives. There have been many, many such examples, but this one is fresh and directed at average citizens – so it has a good chance to galvanize public opinion.

    I would have thought that even you could figure that one out. Despite the blinders.

  102. Or maybe you're a leftist smear artist. I can only go by what you do on here. Sorry.

  103. I was mostly joking, but I will concede that you are skilled at evading questions, twisting the positions of others, and using logical fallacies to convincing effect. In other words, a master debater!

  104. I see a very lucrative grave digging career ahead of him.

  105. Since it's in the media and Ignatieff has talked about it, they are clearly not atempting a Harper-stykle coverup. Do you believe Harper when he says he didn't know about all of Carson's fraud convictions? Is he lying or just incompetent?

  106. It will be interesting to see what the Liberals post about their White Supremacist candidate. I would say that is quite a bit more serious than an ethnic student being ejected from a rally (notice how the media focuses on Ms. Alsam and not the white student that was also ejected. This woman really craves publicity. If that woman was not a plant, I'll eat my socks.

  107. Unbelievable how desperate some of you are on here to lie about and attack political opponents. Then you suggest it's Harper who has problems. Whatever!

    And I don't think Canadians are buying it. They see the desperate tactics, too.

  108. No because he lies about it. lol

  109. It will be interesting to see what the Liberals post about their White Supremacist candidate. I would say that is quite a bit more serious than an ethnic student being ejected from a rally (notice how the media focuses on Ms. Alsam and not the white student that was also ejected. This woman really craves publicity. If that woman was not a plant, I'll eat my socks.

    • no.

    • If that woman was not a plant, I'll eat my socks.

      You'll eat your pants and your shirt too, if you're told to. That's just your nature.

  110. I wonder how much of public subsidy Libs use to pay someone to make 'ads' like this, and then send to Wherry/Macleran's and a few other sympathetic journos, who then show them to public for free saving Libs money so they can continue employing advisers to make nonsense ads like this.

    It is cozy system Libs and msm have going here.

  111. I wonder how much of public subsidy Libs use to pay someone to make 'ads' like this, and then send to Wherry/Macleran's and a few other sympathetic journos, who then show them to public for free saving Libs money so they can continue employing advisers to make nonsense ads like this.

    It is cozy system Libs and msm have going here.

    • Not as cozy as having access to billions of tax payer dollars for your "action plan" ads

  112. Since when aren't political parties allowed to restrict attendance to their events? Just today I read how Iggy's people prevented LIBERALS from attending one of their events in Quebec. Is that armageddon, too? Give your heads a shake. Then again, it's way too late for that now, isn't it.

  113. Or just telling the truth in ways that you can't stand.

    You're more than willing to back up even one accusation you made against me.

    It's like people aren't allowed to challenge some of you on the left. Not me. Not Harper. Not anyone.

    This is the kind of Canada we're having an election over, is it?

  114. So he hasn't ruled over the longest-serving minority in Canadian history? Is this the "truth" you're tying to peddle on us?

    For some in the opposition, up is down, left is right — anything to justify their outrage at having others in power and not them.

  115. Exactly. Harper's paranoia is infecting his whole party and that really is a dangerous shift.

    When people are not just accepting, but actually endorsing, this testing of ideological purity then that slippery slope is tilting ever sharper.

  116. Exactly. Harper's paranoia is infecting his whole party and that really is a dangerous shift.

    When people are not just accepting, but actually endorsing, this testing of ideological purity then that slippery slope is tilting ever sharper.

    • Joanna MacDonald, a fourth-year environmental sciences student at Guelph University was told her name was 'flagged' before they ejected her.

      When your name has been 'flagged' by the PMO, what does that mean?

      Knowing what bureaucracies are like, once your name is in the system…..does it mean she'll shortly find herself on the no-fly list?

      This is getting increasingly dark and dangerous.

  117. You are counting an election at both ends of your timeframe; this is not a useful way of finding the rate of elections. This method of counting is only useful if you want to exaggerate how often elections are happening.

    3 elections in the past 10 years is equally true; though it does not count elections at either end of the timeframe I have chosen. Between Apr 6, 2001 and Apr 6, 2011 there were only elections in 2004, 2006, and 2008.

    No one in the US would complain that the election in 2012 is unnecessary because it would be the second election in 4 years.

    It would be better to claim the past three parliaments have lasted 7 years.

  118. Well here's the news today- though where you'll read it in the lame stream media is questionable.
    . Carlson also worked for the Liberals, much closer to the time of his convictions.
    there was a video on the news last night of Ignatieff admitting to voters that he intended to replace the F 18s.
    (so much for vets instead of jets).
    And a Quebec story today says voters and some members of the press were barred from an Ignatieff rally in the province.
    write all this up Weary

  119. If that woman was not a plant, I'll eat my socks.

    You'll eat your pants and your shirt too, if you're told to. That's just your nature.

  120. Well here's the news today- though where you'll read it in the lame stream media is questionable.
    . Carlson also worked for the Liberals, much closer to the time of his convictions.
    there was a video on the news last night of Ignatieff admitting to voters that he intended to replace the F 18s.
    (so much for vets instead of jets).
    And a Quebec story today says voters and some members of the press were barred from an Ignatieff rally in the province.
    write all this up Weary

  121. So we haven't voted four times in the last seven years? Is this what you Gomers are seriously trying to tell us here? lol. Oh my god.

    I'm sorry, but Canadians aren't buying this over-zealous rubbish. They know when they're being pissed on.

  122. So you disapprove of looking into the matter before reacting?

  123. CBC along with G&M broke the story Nov. 4, but CBC kept running it for days. It was such a non-issue, yet I forgot the idiots in QP demanding Saxon step down. Thanks again, lol!!!

  124. Is Iggy going to have the RCMP check the Liberal White Supremest out?

    No. Relying on the RCMP for political cover is the perogative of the party in power. Opposition parties have to rely on thier own judgements and take responsibility for them. No need for me to point out the contrast to the current gov't, I'm sure.

  125. actually you seem a little…….unhinged

  126. He's going to kick him off the ballot – how is that a whitewash?

  127. I dunno… if I were a Conservative supporter and the Liberals were teeing off on my party's latest own-goal, I might be ticked off. But, you're right, it was an assumption. Plus, the ad was kinda funny, which might have tempered your ticked-offedness.

    Hey, I notice Harper's throwing a couple billion at Quebec as HST compensation. Couldn't he have done that before the government fell? The BQ could have propped him up and avoided this unnecessary election if he had included it in the budget. Interesting development, that.

  128. Not as cozy as having access to billions of tax payer dollars for your "action plan" ads

  129. FINALLY we get some humor in this campaign. In my opinion if you're going to do attack ads, at least make them funny.

  130. FINALLY we get some humor in this campaign. In my opinion if you're going to do attack ads, at least make them funny.

  131. The Liberals have a similar system called Liberalist that is based on a system acquired from the Democrats in the US. You can find it here: http://liberalist.liberal.ca/

    Painting us all as 'enemies' in a big scary database seems a little paranoid. The reality is that all parties use software like this, not only in Canada, but around the world, and it is part of how elections are managed these days. The only way to make sure that you are not in these DBs is to make yourself as politically disengaged as possible, and that is a much worse thing to happen.

  132. "So we haven't voted four times in the last seven years?"

    In the last seven years there have only been 3 elections; 2004, 2006, 2008. I don't know how you would have voted 4 times; are you implying that you have already voted for the election this year?

  133. Excuse me. So you agree that we will now be voting in our fourth $300 million election in seven years? Are you FINALLY admitting to this basic fact?

    Heck, if it's so hard to pull the truth out from the opposition on something like this…..

  134. I stopped reading your retorts after the eighth- it does APPEAR to be ticking you off, my friend.

  135. But why is it that your friends are lying about not having four $300 million elections in the last seven years? That's OK to you, is it? Wow. Next.

  136. Yes, we have had four $300 million dollar elections in the past seven years.

    There, now someone agrees with your plain statement of fact.

  137. Dammit, now that song is stuck in my head….I HATE YOU GOTTABESAID!

  138. Why can't I respond to people who attack me? Then you say you care about democracy. lol

  139. FINALLY! HALLELUJAH!

    Now go tell it to some of the zombies on here. Thanks! lol

  140. We do that because under your accounting system, the fake fixed election law that Harper enacted would have forced TWO ELECTIONS EVERY FOUR YEARS on the public.

    Certainly anyone unhappy with the current election call would be apologetic wrt TWO ELECTIONS EVERY FOUR YEARS! Out of concern for your health and your relationship with the PM many of us have sought to shield you from the TWO ELECTIONS EVERY FOUR YEARS LAW that your guy championed.

    Thank goodness it was just a fake law.

  141. Are you joking, Larry? Where did I say that? How can that possibly be inferred?

  142. Paul Wells grasps the big picture:

    I honestly believe they are popping champagne corks over at CPC campaign HQ because the Liberals think Facebook creeping is the big issue.

    http://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/5569847071514

  143. Paul Wells grasps the big picture:

    I honestly believe they are popping champagne corks over at CPC campaign HQ because the Liberals think Facebook creeping is the big issue.

    http://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/5569847071514

    • Wells seems awfully cranky these days. Apparently he thinks he can scold everyone in the media (old and new) into conducting this election through his preferred narrative. I don't begrudge him his opinion, but I don't think hectoring people is a particularly effective strategy. One way to get younger people involved in this election is to piss them off… Apparently facebook creeping (which my daughter assures me is a very real sin amoungst the yout) is pissing them off.

      • I disagree. Wells is being more farsighted than most of the media, because he recognizes that the "Facebook creeping" stuff amounts to a trivial distraction, at best. He sees that the writing is on the wall for the Liberals, and I think he's trying to goad Liberals out of the sense of faux complacency that arises from winning mini-victories on micro-issues like this.

        • Yeah, I guess a tweet is a tweet. Still, I'd prefer to see media people more interested in reporting the campaign rather than trying to direct it.

          If FB creeping is trivial, then so be it. It seems to be what people are interested in and I think it's both arrogant and counterproductive to keep telling people that they are interested wrong.

          Afterthought… and I don't think it's trivial at all. It seems to me that it's revealing of a behaviourial pattern in this government that is quite worrying. It's the attitude and behaviour of the paranoid, jealous boyfriend. People vote on their instincts and I think the creepiness of overzealous, control freaks sets off a lot of instinctive alarm bells.

          • People vote on their instincts and I think the creepiness of overzealous, control freaks sets off a lot of instinctive alarm bells.

            Maybe. I think that voters have more collective wisdom than we give them credit for. If someone doesn't already think Harper's a control freak, I doubt that this story will change their mind. Also, I think that Liberal strategists are blinded by symbolism, at the expense of more substantive issues. They latch onto symbolic trivia like this like a drowning man latching onto a lifeline. Perhaps not the optimal campaign strategy, as Coyne and Wells are quick to point out.

          • Perhaps not the optimal campaign strategy, as Coyne and Wells are quick to point out.

            I'm not a campaign strategist, but I'll take this Liberal campaign (to this point) over any of the previous half dozen.

          • Sure, but that's a pretty low bar.

          • I agree with you Crit. Some people will see this sort of creative ad, and it is a creative ad, as an indicator of how hip the Liberals and NDP want to portray themselves. But to the serious voter crowd, these sort of silly things just make the Libs and NDP look less capable of governing.

            Governing is not done by the click of a mouse, and not by means of facebook postings either. Serious people understand this, and it is serious people we need for governing this country.

          • Yup. Most Canadians don't follow politics very closely, and when they do they tend to worry about "big-picture" stuff like the economy. I understand why the Liberals are pushing the "villainous control-freak PM" narrative, but I honestly don't think this stuff is going to change anyone's mind.

            Almost everyone in the country has already formed an opinion about Harper. He's a known quantity.

          • It won't, the same way they know Harper, they know Iggy and the LPC.

          • People change their minds all the time & sometimes familiarity breeds contempt. I am very familiar with Mr. Harper and I certainly changed my mind about him.

          • Agree but in this case it's just too late, and for LPC to little time to reinvent themselves, the only way that could be a big shift, is if Harper and Co. make a big mistake.

          • But sometimes events underline things in a very simple way. Stockwell Day not knowing which way a river flows, for exampe.

          • Also, I think that Liberal strategists are blinded by symbolism, at the expense of more substantive issues.

            Just last week Wells was saying that the Liberals may have found their fight. But suddenly, because they decided to one comical ad about a Conservative faux pas, then the Liberal communication strategy is in disarray.

            I'm finding hard to believe you of all people buy that idea.

  144. Oh, so now we haven't had four elections in seven years because I'm using some kind of a special "accounting" system, am I? lol We're supposed to do something other than using BASIC MATH? BASIC COUNTING? lol

    Oh, this is too good. You zombies are something else.

  145. Dennis, you sound like my wife.

  146. Dennis, you sound like my wife.

    • What's that supposed to mean? Wow. And here you were suggesting that I was losing it. This is only politics you know. I mean, you don't beat her up or something? Not because of this.

  147. God love her.

  148. nice video is true

  149. nice video is true

  150. It's misleading to measure from end to start for duration between elections. A more accurate statement would be to say this is the fourth election in 11 years since the 2000 election.

  151. What's that supposed to mean? Wow. And here you were suggesting that I was losing it. This is only politics you know. I mean, you don't beat her up or something? Not because of this.

  152. The failed lobbyist and lifer politician knows better what kind of government we want? More people prefer a Lib-NDP coalition to another CPC government.

  153. I thought Sun Media were gospel?

  154. AHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    You're the one trying to deny the slam-dunk fact that we have had four $300 million elections in seven years, but I'M the one who's doing the misleading?

    Oh, you're something alright. And shameless, too!

  155. Joanna MacDonald, a fourth-year environmental sciences student at Guelph University was told her name was 'flagged' before they ejected her.

    When your name has been 'flagged' by the PMO, what does that mean?

    Knowing what bureaucracies are like, once your name is in the system…..does it mean she'll shortly find herself on the no-fly list?

    This is getting increasingly dark and dangerous.

  156. It's obvious you hate the guy, but the rest of us elected him prime minister twice. You say you want democracy, yet here you are sneering at our democratic choices. It's not democracy you want. It's your way you want. And you get outraged when you don't get it. Outraged.

  157. Oh, I didn't attack you. I kinda made fun of the Conservatives and suggested you were angry, but that's no attack. C'mon now.

    But since you're ticked off, I found a link to cheer you up: a Liberal own-goal.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta

  158. Oh, I didn't attack you. I kinda made fun of the Conservatives and suggested you were angry, but that's no attack. C'mon now.

    But since you're ticked off, I found a link to cheer you up: a Liberal own-goal.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta

    • Wow, you've taken it upon yourself to make this about: yourself. Interesting. So, while we're at it, you persist in falsely describing me as "ticked off." Why is that? Is this a cult religion for you, too? lol

      • Hey! Now THAT's an attack!

      • Dennis, I just can't understand what you're so worked up: about. Is it your poor grasp of the proper use of: the colon?

        • So, in your world, we aren't having four elections in seven years, and I'm somehow ticked off. Again, if you have to make things up like this, just what is your agenda about? If it's not about the truth, just what is it about?

        • P>Now THAT was funny! Thanks for the laugh, Andrew!

  159. I have denied no such thing Dennis. I'm merely stating that that fact doesn't really tell the tale. When Harper caused the 2008 election, that was the third election in four years by your measure, which frankly has more shock value. This Parliament has lasted 2.5 years, which is typical for minorities.

    I'm giving an untorqued view of the facts, you're repeating a misleading statement ad nauseum. I'd say you're the shameless partisan shill.

  160. You're torquing. The allegation is that Harper lies about how our parliamentary system works. This is a demonstrably true statement. We have quotes of him lying on several occasions.

  161. You're torquing. The allegation is that Harper lies about how our parliamentary system works. This is a demonstrably true statement. We have quotes of him lying on several occasions.

  162. I'm mocking your rhetoric. I thought that was obvious.

  163. While I'd always prefer to be greeted with a smile, I wasn't joking. You seemed to be suggesting that Holly's response was merely an attempt to spin a bad situation.

    To me, it seems like Ignatieff did handle his first campaign glitch in a surehanded way. He said the comments – as reported – were unacceptable and committed to finding out if the reports were accurate. He has since given the offending candidate his walking papers and I think that he's probably done himself some good out of the whole situation. If that's making lemonade (and maybe it is) then let me offer you a glass.

  164. It's just that I am repelled by Harper's cowardly, dishonest antics, so when another politician acts sensibly and candidly, it is a blessed relief.

  165. It's just that I am repelled by Harper's cowardly, dishonest antics, so when another politician acts sensibly and candidly, it is a blessed relief.

  166. Wow, you've taken it upon yourself to make this about: yourself. Interesting. So, while we're at it, you persist in falsely describing me as "ticked off." Why is that? Is this a cult religion for you, too? lol

  167. Oops, my apologies – I accidently voted Dennis's latest post up instead of down.

  168. So if you agree that we're having our fourth $300 million election in seven years, why are you bothering me? God. Get a life or something. lol. Next.

  169. First, any of the party leaders would have done the exact same thing when confronted with a candidate who turned out to be a "white rights" activist who made disparaging remarks about First Nations and Innu people.

    Second, it really does reflect poorly on a party–and by extension, its leader–when someone with that sort of easily verifiable background is allowed to become a candidate.

  170. Wouldn't know as I don't read it.

  171. Thumbs down, because you just had take the fun out of it.

  172. First, any of the party leaders would have done the exact same thing when confronted with a candidate who turned out to be a "white rights" activist who made disparaging remarks about First Nations and Innu people.

    Second, it really does reflect poorly on a party–and by extension, its leader–when someone with that sort of easily verifiable background is allowed to become a candidate.

    • First…

      I dunno if that's true. Rob Anders (of "Mandala is a terrorist" fame) still runs as a Conservative Candidate, and the party headquarters forbid his local riding from even nominating another candidate. Tom Lukiwski (of 'fagg*ts and their dirty finger nails' fame) still runs as a Conservative Candidate. Some political parties go to great pains to deny, deflect and counter-attack rather than dealing openly with troubling sentiments from within their parties.

      Second… Mistakes in screening don't reflect particularly well on anyone. But how those mistakes are handled – be it a sacrifice candidate in an unwinnable riding, or be it a high-ranking political fixer in the PMO – it's the responsible management of those mistakes that really speaks to competance. Wouldn't you agree?

      • Whoops – my response was autodeleted because I forgot to use an asterisk.

        I don't think Anders is comparable because he opposed the Mandela award due to boneheaded ideological conviction, rather than racism. If Anders ever said something racist he'd be ejected toute suite. Lukiwski told an offensive gay joke 20 years ago, and when it came out he apologized profusively. I don't think telling an offensive joke in one's youth should be a career-destroying offense.

        I agree with point #2.

  173. Wells seems awfully cranky these days. Apparently he thinks he can scold everyone in the media (old and new) into conducting this election through his preferred narrative. I don't begrudge him his opinion, but I don't think hectoring people is a particularly effective strategy. One way to get younger people involved in this election is to piss them off… Apparently facebook creeping (which my daughter assures me is a very real sin amoungst the yout) is pissing them off.

  174. Hey! Now THAT's an attack!

  175. Do you also agree that it's our fourth election in 11 years, and that Harper caused the third election in four years in 2008?

    I'm 'bothering' you because you're trying to mislead people. I don't particularly mind elections. I'm surprised anyone gets particularly exercised about having them.

  176. I expect you are correct that they all have databases; but recall that Harper's communications budget went up a lot and I wonder how much is in the CIMS one. I think Haprer's reason for ending the mandatory long-form census was because Stats Canada keeps the information confidential, and it provides data to Canadians without any partisan favour. I'm sure Harper much prefers his CIMS to have all that information, because he feels no ethical concerns over people's privacy, and because he is then able to deny the information to other people.

  177. First…

    I dunno if that's true. Rob Anders (of "Mandala is a terrorist" fame) still runs as a Conservative Candidate, and the party headquarters forbid his local riding from even nominating another candidate. Tom Lukiwski (of 'fagg*ts and their dirty finger nails' fame) still runs as a Conservative Candidate. Some political parties go to great pains to deny, deflect and counter-attack rather than dealing openly with troubling sentiments from within their parties.

    Second… Mistakes in screening don't reflect particularly well on anyone. But how those mistakes are handled – be it a sacrifice candidate in an unwinnable riding, or be it a high-ranking political fixer in the PMO – it's the responsible management of those mistakes that really speaks to competance. Wouldn't you agree?

  178. How can I be misleading people if you agree that IT'S OUR FOURTH ELECTION IN SEVEN YEARS!

    Is this some kind of a drug cult? Is that why some of you are engaging in these absurd agitations? Wow!

  179. I disagree. Wells is being more farsighted than most of the media, because he recognizes that the "Facebook creeping" stuff amounts to a trivial distraction, at best. He sees that the writing is on the wall for the Liberals, and I think he's trying to goad Liberals out of the sense of faux complacency that arises from winning mini-victories on micro-issues like this.

  180. Do you not understand the difference between a misleading statement and an untrue statement? The statement is true, but misleading. It makes it sound like each parliament was 7 years/4 in length, ie, less than two years. However, each parliament since 2004 has lasted 7 years/3 each, which is over 2 years each and normal for minority parliament situations.

    I'm sure you're familiar with the cliche 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'? Statistics can be true but misleading in their interpretation. You haven't done me the same service of responding to my sincere questions. I've been sincere in my responses to you.

  181. More to the point, this argument about the number of elections is stupid. There are plenty of good attacks that you shouldn't have to rely on stupid ones.

  182. Do you believe 'Ignatief' when he says he didn't know about 'André Forbes'? Is he lying or just incompetent?

  183. If this truth is so stupid, why are so many of you desperately trying to stop me from using it? lol. It's not going to work. You've only motivated me even more. Thanks!

  184. How in the world is it misleading to state a fact? Four elections in seven years. God. When some of you don't like a fact, you never stop. Man.

  185. Whoops – my response was autodeleted because I forgot to use an asterisk.

    I don't think Anders is comparable because he opposed the Mandela award due to boneheaded ideological conviction, rather than racism. If Anders ever said something racist he'd be ejected toute suite. Lukiwski told an offensive gay joke 20 years ago, and when it came out he apologized profusively. I don't think telling an offensive joke in one's youth should be a career-destroying offense.

    I agree with point #2.

  186. Yeah, I guess a tweet is a tweet. Still, I'd prefer to see media people more interested in reporting the campaign rather than trying to direct it.

    If FB creeping is trivial, then so be it. It seems to be what people are interested in and I think it's both arrogant and counterproductive to keep telling people that they are interested wrong.

    Afterthought… and I don't think it's trivial at all. It seems to me that it's revealing of a behaviourial pattern in this government that is quite worrying. It's the attitude and behaviour of the paranoid, jealous boyfriend. People vote on their instincts and I think the creepiness of overzealous, control freaks sets off a lot of instinctive alarm bells.

  187. I'm guessing that this was a rhetorical question (as most of your questions are), but I'll answer it anyway: because the (true) statement is misleading.

    You still haven't answered my questions.

  188. How can a baldly true statement be false? Only to zealots like you who can't stand the truth. You forced this election. It's ludicrous. It's backfiring on you. And you can't stand it. Terrific. Live with it.

  189. Andrew didn't say a true statement was false. He said " the (true) statement is misleading".

    There is a difference between false and misleading.

  190. I suspect you are right, but possibly for other reasons. I recall the Conservatives were reported to have put a lot of resources into CIMS, and it payed back big-time in terms of finding donors in voters, and I don't recall hearing that the other parties put as much money into their systems. Having said that, the Liberal system is supposed to be as good (which they will tout as a good thing, since their old system was nowhere near as successful as the CPC's), but the new system was acquired from the Dems in the US – seemingly getting a grade A system at a fraction of the cost.

    On your second point, I'm not sure that the decision to scrap the census was related to the development of voter databases, but it is an interesting thought. If the political parties can all use their resources to build databases that give an amazing amount of information about potential voters, and harness that information more easily than their previous sources of data (I'll assume Statscan was a significant 'default' data source), then maybe its not quite as critical to have the long census as we all would have thought. This of course assumes that one can build an accurate, useful database without inputs from Statscan, which is what I have doubted all along.

  191. I didn't do anything, Dennis.

    I didn't say the statement was false, Dennis.

    I think you need to take a few deep breaths and read what I wrote again.

  192. I just don't know how you sleep at night. Honestly.

  193. I just don't know how you sleep at night. Honestly.

    • I can't explain your bizarre views, can I.

  194. People vote on their instincts and I think the creepiness of overzealous, control freaks sets off a lot of instinctive alarm bells.

    Maybe. I think that voters have more collective wisdom than we give them credit for. If someone doesn't already think Harper's a control freak, I doubt that this story will change their mind. Also, I think that Liberal strategists are blinded by symbolism, at the expense of more substantive issues. They latch onto symbolic trivia like this like a drowning man latching onto a lifeline. Perhaps not the optimal campaign strategy, as Coyne and Wells are quick to point out.

  195. You have to start counting the years from the BEGINNING of Chretien's last term (where Martin took over), if you are going to be honest about the time span; either that, or use your crystal ball and determine how long the next government will be in power. You see, the years ACTUALLY IN OFFICE have to count somewhere.

    It's like that whole millenium, century or dacade thing; people think the one tthat ends in zero is the first year of the new whatever, when it is really the last one (there was no Year Zero, so th first decade was years 1-10; century years 1-100; etc).

    I can see how some people who don't stopto think about these things can get confused, but I'm far from the first person to explain this to you, Dennis. So you're either slow, or deliberately fudging the numbers.

  196. Correction: How can a baldly true statement be MISLEADING, for crying out loud? Because you can't stand to read or hear it? lol. God, some of you.

  197. I can't explain your bizarre views, can I.

  198. Really? So it's perfectly democratic to break election spending laws? (Yes, I know it's still before the courts, but it doesn't look good for the CPC) It's OK to be the FIRST GOVERNMENT EVER to be in contempt of Parliament? It's OK to hire a criminal as an advisor & let said person lobby the government?

    Harper broke two promises (appointing a senator & letting a Liberal cross the floor without seeking reelection as a Con) as his very first act as PM (surely some kind of record). I could go on; there's a list out there somewhere with over 100 broken promises & boneheaded moves.

    Democracy means the politicians are our servants; they answer to us. ALL MPs should have a voice, as they are our representatives. That means cooperating with the opposition – NOT writing manuals about how NOT to work with committees. Etc, etc. Another few years under Harper, and "Canadian democracy" will be an oxymoron. My Canada does not include Harper-style governments.

  199. Why in the world do we have to use your made up rules about how we count elections? God. We've had four in seven years. You can't stand this. So, you make up this bizarre nonsense to counter it. It's dismissed as nonsense, and you can't stand it. You have to persist in a lie because a truth is too much to deal with.

    But that's not my problem. I didn't force this fourth $300 million election in seven years. You people wanted it. You're going to have to explain it. And, obviously, so far you failing miserably. Miserably.

  200. Perhaps not the optimal campaign strategy, as Coyne and Wells are quick to point out.

    I'm not a campaign strategist, but I'll take this Liberal campaign (to this point) over any of the previous half dozen.

  201. Seems like you're the one who can't stand it. I haven't heard a single non-partisan complain about this, and even most Tories have stopped by now.

    It's equally true that this is the fourth election in 11 years. It's equally true that half those elections were caused by Stephen Harper. It's most important that none of this is important. We've got an election, so let's focus on issues that matter.

  202. I agree with you Crit. Some people will see this sort of creative ad, and it is a creative ad, as an indicator of how hip the Liberals and NDP want to portray themselves. But to the serious voter crowd, these sort of silly things just make the Libs and NDP look less capable of governing.

    Governing is not done by the click of a mouse, and not by means of facebook postings either. Serious people understand this, and it is serious people we need for governing this country.

  203. He raises a good point. Stephen Harper has passed a law requiring us to have two elections in four years. That monster.

  204. He raises a good point. Stephen Harper has passed a law requiring us to have two elections in four years. That monster.

    • Yes, and what does that have to do with us having four elections in seven years? God, you're so desperate to silence people who dare oppose your ideology. Like I keep saying, it's like a religion. A cult religion.

      • Are you Pierre Poilievre writing under a fake name?

        • Are you a zombie who can't come up with better material than that? lol

  205. Let's see a link for that claim about the Liberals, Dennis.

    As for "Since when aren't political parties allowed to restrict attendance to their events?" – This is an election; the "event" was supposed to be a public rally.

    Harper is running so scared that he won't allow a teen to attend because of a picture she has of herslf with an opponent; contrast that to the way Ignatieff has not only been allowing non-Liberals in, but has been actually taking and answering questions from them.

    If Harper won't speak with ordinary Canadians, then why in the world should we listen to anything he says, or give him any kind of authority over us? The man is looking increasingly paranoid and dictatorial.

  206. Let's see a link for that claim about the Liberals, Dennis.

    As for "Since when aren't political parties allowed to restrict attendance to their events?" – This is an election; the "event" was supposed to be a public rally.

    Harper is running so scared that he won't allow a teen to attend because of a picture she has of herslf with an opponent; contrast that to the way Ignatieff has not only been allowing non-Liberals in, but has been actually taking and answering questions from them.

    If Harper won't speak with ordinary Canadians, then why in the world should we listen to anything he says, or give him any kind of authority over us? The man is looking increasingly paranoid and dictatorial.

    • Let's see a link for that claim about the Liberals, Dennis.
      http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011

      If there are more people who come to an event than the venue can accommodate, of course you have to turn people away. What planet do some of you live on? One where you have to squeeze more people in than can fit? Geez.

      We've had our fourth $300 million election in seven years so we can focus on this garbage. Serious issues face this country, and we're talking about a Facebook account. Unbelievable.

      I think people won't stand for this, which is why some of the usual suspects here are agitating so hard. You have to force your way, don't you. But this is democracy. Good luck.

      • "This was not a rally or a town hall event." – from the article you posted.

        Troll.

  207. Very clever ad! – and one that is almost certainly directed towards the youth vote. That's one low cost ad that could likely swing some votes their way.

  208. Very clever ad! – and one that is almost certainly directed towards the youth vote. That's one low cost ad that could likely swing some votes their way.

  209. Dennis, I just can't understand what you're so worked up: about. Is it your poor grasp of the proper use of: the colon?

  210. Some of which were Harper's doing. Glad you agree 2008 was unnecessary.

  211. Yup. Most Canadians don't follow politics very closely, and when they do they tend to worry about "big-picture" stuff like the economy. I understand why the Liberals are pushing the "villainous control-freak PM" narrative, but I honestly don't think this stuff is going to change anyone's mind.

    Almost everyone in the country has already formed an opinion about Harper. He's a known quantity.

  212. Sure, but that's a pretty low bar.

  213. It's equally true that this is the fourth election in 11 years.

    lol, how can both statements be equally true? You're talking out of your ass now. You're making things up. You can't stand people saying the truth about this. Up is down. Left is right. Four elections in seven years is no longer four elections in seven years.

    This is why we're having our fourth election in seven years, is it?

    Congrats. lol. Next.

  214. Yes, and what does that have to do with us having four elections in seven years? God, you're so desperate to silence people who dare oppose your ideology. Like I keep saying, it's like a religion. A cult religion.

  215. So, in your world, we aren't having four elections in seven years, and I'm somehow ticked off. Again, if you have to make things up like this, just what is your agenda about? If it's not about the truth, just what is it about?

  216. OH MY GOD that is funny. Thanks.

  217. Let's see a link for that claim about the Liberals, Dennis.
    http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011

    If there are more people who come to an event than the venue can accommodate, of course you have to turn people away. What planet do some of you live on? One where you have to squeeze more people in than can fit? Geez.

    We've had our fourth $300 million election in seven years so we can focus on this garbage. Serious issues face this country, and we're talking about a Facebook account. Unbelievable.

    I think people won't stand for this, which is why some of the usual suspects here are agitating so hard. You have to force your way, don't you. But this is democracy. Good luck.

  218. "how can both statements be equally true?"

    Quite easily. Take some deep breaths, and then try reading Andrew's comment again.

  219. Now you have to lie? Now you have to tell us that Harper was the one who forced this fourth $300 million election in seven years? You have to shamelessly blame him for what you wanted, which is for people to endure this nonsense of an election?

  220. In other words, you can't explain it, either. lol. Next.

  221. It won't, the same way they know Harper, they know Iggy and the LPC.

  222. The period beginning immediately after the 2000 election and ending with the 2011 election is 11 years (10 1/2 more accurately). During that time there have been 4 elections.
    It's not hard. I think that if you had tried the breathing exercises you might have been able to figure this out without my help.

  223. You agitators on here want to go all the way back to 2000, which was our fifth election in 11 years. Right? Why? If this election isn't about the truth, then what in the world is it about? Wow.

  224. No. The 2000 election was not the fifth in 11 years.
    I don't want to go all the way back to anything. I was trying to help you understand some very simple math. When you asked, ""how can both statements be equally true?" , I thought there was a chance you'd like the answer.

    Here's some more interesting math:
    What are the chances that everytime I see one of your freshly posted comments it's rated +1, despite the fact that it almost always ends up with a net negative. I'd think the odds that the first person to rate your comment almost always gives it a + despite the majority of raters almost always giving you – would be incredibly low.
    What do you think is going on there, dennis?

  225. Elections in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2011.

    Four in seven years.

    This is a fact that some of you so desperately want to lie about because you can't justify the expense and nonsense otherwise.

    Next.

  226. Yes, and it's also the 4th in 11( 10.5) years. You understand that now, don't you?
    And I haven't lied about anything.
    Speaking of 2008, would you like to share one of your choicer outraged comments from that year, when Harper triggered the 3rd election in 4 years? That's obviously a much greater frequency than 4 in 7. You must have been apoplectic!

  227. So you're not even disagreeing that it's "also" the fourth in seven years. So your sole purpose on here is what? Nonsense – just like this election. We're having this election to indulge this nonsense. Thank you.

  228. Why would you assume I have only one purpose?
    You must be relieved that Ignatieff has cut the frequency of elections in this country almost in half from Harper's non-stop 3 in 4 years, to a much more reasonable 4 in 7.
    Have you emailed him to express your gratitude?

  229. You now think four elections in seven years is "much more reasonable." At least you've stopped lying about the fact that it's not happening. I guess that's a start.

  230. Are you Pierre Poilievre writing under a fake name?

  231. Are you a zombie who can't come up with better material than that? lol

  232. People change their minds all the time & sometimes familiarity breeds contempt. I am very familiar with Mr. Harper and I certainly changed my mind about him.

  233. Now, now Dennis, just go to your happy place.

    Unless . . . oh, gawd . . . this IS your happy place???

    Oh well, To each his own, I suppose

  234. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the possible effect an execution such as this might have on the elusive youth vote the grumpy old folks in the press have been fulminatin' about for a while. Who knows, it might be just the thing to get them off their couches and engage.

    (Edit: Whops. Just above Richard S. made the exact same point. Shorter and to the point as well.)

  235. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the possible effect an execution such as this might have on the elusive youth vote the grumpy old folks in the press have been fulminatin' about for a while. Who knows, it might be just the thing to get them off their couches and engage.

    (Edit: Whops. Just above Richard S. made the exact same point. Shorter and to the point as well.)

  236. Now go wash your thumb

  237. Amazing how some of you just can't stand to be put in the wrong. Then you turn around and tell Canadians it's all about democracy. My ass. lol. Next.

  238. But sometimes events underline things in a very simple way. Stockwell Day not knowing which way a river flows, for exampe.

  239. Learn to read, Dennis. There are classes that can help.

    I specifically said 2008 – you remember that one, don't you? When HARPER said parliament was dysfunctional, said he couldn't work with the opposition (it might have helped if he had actually tried), IGNORED HIS OWN ELECTIONS LAW, and pulled the plug on the 39th?

    Harper was also the guy who sent us to the polls in 2005.

    So if you have an issue about too many elections, keep in mind that two of the last three terms of office were cut short by none other than… who? That's right, Dennis – HARPER!!!

    Before you call someone a liar, READ THE EFFING POST and get your own facts straight.

    Before this election was called, I didn't agree with a lot of what you said, but at least you were worth reading. Now you're just Emily on acid. I'm putting you on ignore until May 3.

  240. "This was not a rally or a town hall event." – from the article you posted.

    Troll.

  241. Time to call it quits Lenny. He's completely lost it. We should all put him on "ignore".

  242. What in the world does any of that have to do with forcing of our CURRENT fourth election in seven years? I never made any claims regarding the nonsense you're bringing up. Man.

    You have the gall to suggest that I can't read. Not only can you not read, you can't even stick to the topic at hand.

    Man, are some of you desperate, and lacking in basic intellectual skills. Sorry.

  243. P>Now THAT was funny! Thanks for the laugh, Andrew!

  244. Also, I think that Liberal strategists are blinded by symbolism, at the expense of more substantive issues.

    Just last week Wells was saying that the Liberals may have found their fight. But suddenly, because they decided to one comical ad about a Conservative faux pas, then the Liberal communication strategy is in disarray.

    I'm finding hard to believe you of all people buy that idea.

  245. And herein lies a clear distinction between Ignatieff and Harper. Ignatieff hears a candidate has acted improperly, heacts quickly to investigate and, once the evidence shows the candidate is unfit, has him removed from the Liberal slate.

    Harper, on the other hand, refuses to be accountable for anything; it's always his staffers' doing; not his problem. Which, given his reputation for hands-on control, sounds even more like BS than it would from most.

    Harper: the man who campaigns on acountability. What a joke! Give us instead someone who clearly demonstrates accountability and a willingness to seek out facts and to act on them.

  246. Hey Dennis. I've been trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. It doesn't seem you are similarly motivated. I forgot that I shouldn't feed trolls, and you've just been trolling. You denying the undeniable fact that there have been four (count'em four 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2011) elections in the period since the day after the 2000 election seals it. You have a severe mental deficiency that prevents you from being a reasonable person, or you just like to argue that day is night.

    I hate to be an enabler of your mental illness, so I'll try not to engage you in reasonable conversation in the future.

  247. More reasonable than the 3 in 4 years we had after Harper triggered the last two, if election frequency is your issue, which I gathered it was. Are you not upset about frequent elections?
    What did I lie about "not happening"?

  248. "What in the world does any of that have to do with forcing of our CURRENT fourth election in seven years?"

    You're right. Let's ignore those other elections. Let's pretend they don't even exist.
    Ok, now….so this is the first election in 7 years!

    You were saying?

  249. Agree but in this case it's just too late, and for LPC to little time to reinvent themselves, the only way that could be a big shift, is if Harper and Co. make a big mistake.