The highest compliment - Macleans.ca
 

The highest compliment


 

The Conservative side directs an attack ad at Jack Layton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PYTd52pT28&feature=player_embedded


 

The highest compliment

    • Ignatieff, so ambitious he confirmed the candidacy of a white supremacist in 2009…

      • Greasy political parties, so ambitious to get latched on to a stream of government cheques, they'll lie and prey on emotions to induce fear and hatred of fellow citizens solely for their own gain.

        • Though Harper may stand out as the first PM to have a convicted fraudster as his policy and constitutional advisor.

          Maybe people should be asking Harper if he got his ideas about Canada's constitution from Bruce Carson.

          • Nice try. However, Carson was vetted by the Ethics Commissioner and there is no evidence or accusation that he did anything wrong while working in the PMO. He has not be in the PMO since 2008. Desperation? You bet.

            I thought you Libs and your soft of crime agenda believed in rehabilitation and that all we need to do is build more basketball courts and the crooks will turn into angels and all can be forgiven.

          • Sorry kiddy, take a look at your " war on drugs" type policies and we see how effective your tough on crime is.
            You fund the black market, defend that, kitten.

      • Yes also a racist who calls Indian featherheads and also a former judge he believes there are degrees of sexual assault

    • The conservatives got duped.This fellow was a knock down candidate that was using the election as method of getting inside the party.

  1. LOL Duceppe and Layton work out together. I imagine they chat about a lot of things while sweating in a gym.

    • Didn't peg you as a homophobe, Emily.

      • Nor did I. 'Twas a cheap shot, and not even funny as a saving grace.

        • Did I miss something?

          I'm naive, but not THAT naive- where did Emily go wrong?

          • Department of Insidious Implications. Sweating together as workout buddies. It's poor form to just come right out — heh — and call them gay, but as a drive-by it's easy to pretend it was an innocent choice of words.

            I don't think she's necessarily a real homophobe, I think she's just willing to toss a casual cheap shot at a couple of leaders she doesn't like, and it ain't classy.

            I suppose it's possible it was an innocent remark, but if so it's a really weird observation to pluck out of nowhere, no?

          • Why give her the benefit of the doubt ?

            Emily has a reputation for yelling "sexist" at the drop of a hat on here.

            Don't cry wolf Cats !

          • Because it's in my nature to give people the benefit of the doubt. Doubt is a wonderful thing. I live my life through doubt. In the words of Robert Weston,

            "Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth. Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery. A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief. Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false. Let no one fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is the testing of belief. The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing."

          • Meh. I'll take a pass, brother.

          • Fair enough, you're a reasonable fellow.

            (Stick around another year or so, that oughta fix it!)

      • Nonsense. WTH did the lady say that's homophobic?

  2. This comment was deleted.

    • Nope. It's Iggy that getting nervous.

  3. This just in: Harper explicitly called for a coalition of conservatives and Quebec nationalists in a 1996 essay:
    http://www.canada.com/news/decision-canada/Right+

    The money quote:

    "… a strategic alliance of Quebec nationalists with conservatives outside Quebec might become possible, and it might be enough to sustain a government."

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Great essay. Old news.

      • http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/571628/A-Flowch

        Thank you for offering to have a discussion with me. Before we start this discussion, I must first ask: Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

      • You make it sound as though their intention was to sell lemonade, you do realize that by "sustain a government" he intended to grab power from a MAJORITY Government.

        And how exactly do you figure out that post Clarity Act, the Block was suddenly transformed from nationalists to separatists? Quite bendy those standards of yours.

        • I never thought anyone could squeeze so many incoherent accusations into three sentences, but here you are.

        • "You make it sound as though their intention was to sell lemonade, you do realize that by "sustain a government" he intended to grab power from a MAJORITY Government. "

          That may be the stupidest thing ever posted on here. Exactly how would one "grab power" from a government that has a majority of seats? Vote of non-confidence? Vote down budget?

          You do realize you need more votes than the government to do that, right?

      • Of course you see the irony in your response right?

        • This comment was deleted.

          • Nope. Just pointing out the irony that a "strategic alliance" is what Liberals on this board have been talking about all along, not a formal coalition. As you pointed out, there is a clear, undeniable difference between a strategic alliance and a coalition. What Mr. Harper proposed to the Bloc and NDP in 2004 was a strategic alliance- together they would defeat the Martin government then they the Conservatives would attempt to win the confidence of the House with only Conservatives in cabinet. Clearly NOT a coalition. Which is pretty much what Iggy said the other day on the CBC.

    • Just in…….from 1996.

      How desperate is the leftist media?

      This desperate.

      • What is the statute of limitations on quotes? I'd like to know what the rules are, here.

        • The rules are simple. Nothing the CPC has said over five minutes ago should be brought up, because it's so five minutes ago.

          Anything any other party has said since the dawn of confederation is fair game, however.

    • Love the quote :"Philosophically, it is logical for liberals to offer Quebec money and privileged treatment, while conservatives find it easier to offer autonomy and enhanced jurisdiction," Harper and Flanagan stated. "On that basis, a strategic alliance of Quebec nationalists with conservatives outside Quebec might become possible, and it might be enough to sustain a government.""

      Duceppe proudly boasted during the French-language debate that he got from Harper what he had negotiated with Harper in hotel rooms in 2004, two months before a newly-elected parliament convened : billions to settle fiscal imbalance and increases in transfer payments.

    • Of course the lefties will jump on this fifteen year old article when the situation was completely different. We had one party that was running the country with no other party able to compete against them. Don't let context get in the way.

      • And how old are some of the quotes the Conservative attack adds use. Grow a pair.

        • Touchy touchy…..context my friend, context. It is a cheap shot with no balance. This is a media report. Not a political ad. Do you guys actually need the main street media to fight your battles. This is not 1996 in case you haven't noticed.

          • I know it is not 1996. We have progressed to a multi-party democracy. I'll be happy when folks leave the last century and move to a proportional, of some sort, representation and embrace a collaborative form of government.
            It will be light years better than what is on offer now.

          • Oh and by the way the Liberals are not left.

  4. What is scarier than an Iggy led coalition with seperatists?

    A Layton led coalition with the seperatists.

    The Conservative war room is at the top of its game.

    • What is scarier than the CPC in charge of social policy?

      The CPC in charge of economic policy.

      • "What is scarier than the CPC in charge of social policy?

        The CPC in charge of economic policy. "

        The OCED and IMF, not to mention finance ministers around the globe don't agree.

        • Right, just like those f**ks predicted the 2008 meltdown.

        • "Recession? What recession?"

        • Oh, the IMF! Well, then, things must be fine.

          Brazil phoned for you, by the way.

        • Deficit before recession?

    • If Layton becomes leader of the opposition he will not be prepared to share power with anyone. Being opposition leader gives him the power he has been craving for years. Ignatieff and the boys will be left to wallow in their own grime for a long time to come.

      • While poor Stephen Harper is totally selfless in his drive for power, seeking it only for the good of the country, hiring convicted criminals to give him policy advice only for the good of the country, cutting funding to programs that Canadians want, only for the good of the country, znd never ever because he's a power-hungry narcissist who thinks he deserves to be made Dictator-for-Life.

        • Boo hoo! Life is tough for Liberals these days. Feel free to rant for the next four years Holly.

    • Technically, since the NDP and Bloc would hold no cabinet seats in a Liberal led minority it would be a, um, er…..what's the word for it?

      Damn……

      Hang on, it's coming….

      OH I GOT IT-

      It would be a strategic alliance.

      Just like what Mr. Harper proposed in 2004.

      • Bullsh.t and you know it. Where does the letter to the GG say strategic alliance. Your having wet dreams again. Careful you could go blind.

    • Shorter biff/chet

      The conservatives are scared of Layton.

      • Oh yah thats right we are scared of Layton. Frankly I would rather see Layton as leader of the opposition than the nutty professor and his band of arrogant clowns.

  5. This comment was deleted.

    • Sorry, I forgot you can't read….but I see that 'gomers' is your new word of the day.

      PS…you even advertise you do no research.

  6. And in other ….cough….cough…wholly unrelated news, Ipsos has the CPC with over 200 seats.

    A little on the high side? I think so. Though with Compass showing an astounding 18 point spread in the GTA, perhaps not.

      • Except they're starting to show a consistent narrative (liberal press' head in the sand notwithstanding):

        The rise of the NDP and the implosion of the Liberal party.

      • you posted that yesterday, get some new material

        • It bears repeating. Chet, you and I are happy campers today.

          • CUE HUNGRY BEARS!

    • .
      The gold standard in polls, we learned in first year Sociology was the face-to-face interview, with a complete demographic balance. Extremely expensive.

      The worst are these land-line, cut-rate Nanos (with a commentary by Nik as a side-order, free of charge) et al affairs.

      I don't read them, I don't argue about them. I will vote on the issues and the people, with a projection about what's going to happen in 5-6 years. This leaves out Harper and Ignatieff.

      As far as attack-ads: If Harper wants to be a good Republican, its simply another heavily weighted data point in my evaluation. He is out automatically.
      .

  7. Why read when you already have your opinion made?

    • If his "money quote" is nonsense, why would the rest of it be any better?

    • Yeah, true. Koolaid overcomes plain English apparently.

  8. Second: If one of your arguments is shown to be faulty will you stop using that argument with everyone?

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Third: Are you prepared to abide by basic principles of reason in discussing this topic?

        E.g. the position that is more reasonable and has supporting evidence should be true; the person asserting a position bears the onus of demonstrating the truth

        • This comment was deleted.

          • Congratulations, this is indeed a discussion. I will talk with you about this topic provided the following rules are obeyed:

            1) Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved.
            2) Do not move on to another argument if it is shown that a fact you have relied upon is inaccurate.
            3) Provide evidence for your position or arguments.
            4) Do not argue that you do not 'need' evidence.

            Do you agree to abide by these rules?

          • In other words, you`d rather accuse me of this garbage than engage in a debate of substance. Why are you so terrified of free speech? Obviously your arguments are so weak that you have to resort to this. Thank you. Next.

          • I take it you do not agree to abide these very reasonable rules.

            THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION.

            I will not talk to you about this topic.

          • It's because you can't. You don't have the truth on your side, you have to make your own rules of debate. Just like they do in communism. Wow! Why are you so terrified of debating people in an open and honest way? Why do you have to target people with your accusations and your rules? Unbelievable.

          • 1) Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved.
            2) Do not move on to another argument if it is shown that a fact you have relied upon is inaccurate.
            3) Provide evidence for your position or arguments.
            4) Do not argue that you do not 'need' evidence.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Why is 'Gomer' capitalized?

          • Why not? Next.

          • Okay, why do you choose to be rude?

  9. I'm assuming the ad is targeted at Conservative voters in English Canada who are moving to the NDP. I'm fairly certain that they don't like the Bloc.

    This ad is interesting, all those Con hacks patting Jack on the head, now they see what they have potentially help create, they get a little nervous. Also, dippers partisans have not had to deal with national attack ads against their party leader. Lets see how they like it. I'll be curious to watch those leadership numbers.

    • If this is the highest compliment Harper can pay to Jack he must really admire Ignatieff. He's been complimenting him for 2 years.

  10. My apologies,

    it was Forum Research, and it was an astounding 2700 person sample.

    The GTA going down?

    Send in the choppers to get the last Liberal outathere…..

    • That's 2700 people acros Canada, not just the GTA

  11. I have to admit. This ad makes me laugh. Everybody knows Layton supported the coalition. Everybody knows ALL politicians are hungry for power. What next? An attack ad that screams "Jack Layton eats cereal for breakfast!"? Oh my god! The scandal!

    • I don't see the harm of trying to nip any Layton surge in the bud. Indeed, reminding Canadians that he is a politician like the rest might well let some air out of that orange NDP balloon, don't you think?

      • I think Canadians are already well aware that ALL of the politicians are politicians. That's why the poll numbers stay relatively consistent even as the media tie themselves in knots about various political shenanigans. I mean seriously. What's Harper trying to tell us here? That he's NOT a power hungry politician? I can't even type that without laughing.

        • a) The entire reason we're having this discussion is because the polls are FINALLY moving, and they're doing so in unexpected directions.

          b) Harper never formed a pre-planned coalition with separatists to grab power, despite all these agitations about past letters and speeches. So, if the opposition can make bogus claims about 1996, 1997, and 2004, why can't Harper tell the truth about 2008 and today?

  12. Not sure that goes against the narrative very much.

    The Libs on the verge of going to third party satus?

    Oh my.

  13. Oh the poor lefties on this board. Igantieff is falling apart and so they are rooting for Layton. Ying and Yang. It doesn't matter. Harper will win this election by a landslide. As Ipsos says maybe 201 seats. Ignatieff back to Harvard and the Libs left with a mess on their hands. God is good on this wonderful Easter weekend in 2011. Jack Layton, leader of the official opposition. You gota love it!

    • MERVIN HOLLINGSHEAD is a conservative terrorist. he writes to every papaer and posts his diatribes on every blog he can get to. A one man marching band for the crooked Harper who never ever talks baout policy but only his hatred of Liberals

      • You can always tell it's him, too. "Igantieff".

    • hollinum you must really have a lifestyle that's strictly political otherwise if I had nothing to worry about in terms of who was going to win the election, I would be no where near my computer defending my leader that doesn't need defending because he's going to win in a landslide. What's the matter with you?

    • Tommy Douglas was right when he referred to the Grits and Tories as "two wings of the same evil bird of prey".

  14. Could they have possibly found a more annoying and unctuous narrator? By around word four I wanted to slap the smarm out of his voice.

    • Do you have any idea how much slapping that would involve?

      • I would wear my walking gloves.

        • I would wear my special slapping gloves.

  15. Or it just gives the NDP more leverage in any coalition, right?

  16. Yesterday's Conservative attack ad: "A vote for the Liberals is a vote for a Liberal-Bloc coalition."

    Today's Conservative attack ad: "A vote for the NDP is a vote for an NDP-Bloc coalition."

    Tomorrow's Conservative attack ad: "A vote for the Christian Heritage Party is a vote for a CHP-Bloc coalition."

    Scary!

    • Except that it was actually the Liberals and the NDP that formed a coalition with separatists, wasn't it? Funny how the same people who like to distort what happened in 1996, 1997 and 2004 don't like to be reminded of what actually happened in 2008, and what could actually happen in 2011. Yes, funny that.

      • Only there was no coalition with the separatists. This has been mentioned over and over again. There would have been no Bloc MPs in government or cabinet. They would simply have offered their support for a certain period of time to ensure some form of stability. Whether you disagree with that concept or not is completely valid. Otherwise, stop spewing lies.

        • You know, it's fascinating. The same people who falsely accuse Harper of wanting a coalition in 1996, 1997, and 2004 get angered when it's pointed out that an actual coalition was formed in 2008 and it involved the Bloc.

          • Please quote me on saying that Harper wanted to form a coalition with the bloc. And just because other people do it, doesn't bolster your argument or make my statement any less truthful.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • I hope you didn't spend all that time looking ;)

          • Nope. I lumped you in. If you say I'm wrong, no probs.

      • Layton & Harper were both willing to get into bed with Duceppe. They can spin it all they want. The facts remain in writing that they wanted the GG to consider the option of these parties forming a government. What really happened to change their minds is a matter of speculation. I don't buy Layton's explanation that he suddenly realized Harper might become Prime Minister.Nor Harper's that this was to put pressure on Martin not to defeat the government and install him as Prime Minister The more likely scenario is that Harper wouldn't give Layton any seats in the cabinet and so he pulled out. You can smother it with whip cream and dip in chocolate but it still BS.

        • No, you're the one who's engaging in desperate speculation over that stupid 2004 letter because you can't justify the 2008 coalition on its own merits, or the one to be formed in 2011 if they get a chance again, right?

          • Finally something we agree on It was indeed a stupid letter written by Harper. Probably seemed like a good idea at the time

        • You are wrong. The letter simply asked the GG to consider her options. Nothing more, nothing less. You can infer what you want but don't lie about what the letter said. What is happening now is B.S. Answer me this. Why would an opposition party whose leader is the most unpopular leader in the country i.e. Ignatieff and his party was running 10-15 pts behind the government want to trigger an election. It is because they wanted to hold Harper to a minority and take over after the election. That is what I see happening here. You tell me something that's different supported by facts.

          • mervin Hollingshead is a tory terrorist

          • What does that make Ragavan Paranchothy or Ripudaman Singh Malik?

          • Your are basing your argument on facts that don't exist. Since the results of the election will not be known until May 2/3 you have already decided the outcome will be a Conservative minority. I base my opinion on statements made by both Duceppe and Layton that Harper's intent was indeed to defeat Martin and have the GG consider the options avaiable. The fact that this is signed by all three leaders leaves little doubt as to what option Harper thought should be taken into consideration. From your own posting " It is because they wanted to hold Harper to a minority and take over after the election." Exactly what part of that statement is based on fact. Apparently it's what you see happening in your crystal ball. Try living in the present.

  17. At this point an actual coalition would by way less annoying than the constant prattle about the "threat" of one.

    • At last a clear perspective – right on mate!

  18. A reduced Bloc presence still means a Bloc presence, doesn't it? Anyone who would even consider a pre-planned coalition with such a presence should be looked at skeptically by many Canadians, shouldn't they? Doesn't the ad simply remind voters what Jack is willing to do for power: rely on the Bloc for a balance of power in Canadian Parliament? For all the people who talk about how precious our Parliament is, just take a look at what they support in Parliament once they smell blood like they did last time.

    • I'm not talking about what Jack is willing to do for power. I'm amused by the irony of saying "don't vote for Jack because he might have a coalition with the Bloc", whilst it's Jack's party that is decimating the Bloc… that. is. all.

      • But he's not decimating the Bloc. In fact, it just makes Jack's role in forming a coalition with them that much more real, and that's what the ad highlights, doesn't it?

        • Dennis, the ad serves to show that the CPC takes the NDP's significant rise in the polls seriously. My guess is this is more likely aimed that the voters that tend to bleed to the LPC because they don't think Jack will get anywhere. If the NDP take out a few Bloc seats, then that's all to the good for the RoC doncha think?

      • I agree pato31. The Harper party thought they would improve their chances of getting 308 seats if they could build up the NDP party with all their praises for Jack and now that he's doing such a bang up job they're showing their true colours and they are green with envy.

  19. Uh- Mr.Harper. You do realize that Jack Layton is eating Duceppe for lunch? If you really want to stop the seperatists maybe you should be suggesting Conservative supporters in Quebec back the NDP. After all it is all about stopping the seperatists isn"t it Steve? Unless they are useful in back you of course. But we'll ignore the hypocriscy for now – right now it is about stopping those seperatists, so time for Conservatives in Quebec to vote NDP -right Steve?

    • Farmer Fred: Of course he realizes that Jack Layton is eating Duceppe for lunch. That's the point IMHO. Harper is offering some poutine as a side dish, in case the Bloc-turned-NDP voters believe the media mantra of "Jack's numbers ALWAYS surge mid-campaign but when it comes to voting, they all run to the LIberals." Spending money on an attack ad is, as the title of the post suggests, a compliment.

      OMG I'm actuallyl agreeing with Wherry. I need a drink.

  20. Wow. Such lies. Not a word of truth to it.

    The Liberals and NDP did sign a coalition agreement (because Harper's economic update refused to address the economic crisis).

    The Bloc had no place in the proposed 2008 coalition. None. They only stated that they would not vote against a new throne speech and budget. They would have no place in government. (Please note the absurdity of this contention: Duceppe would be out on his ear if he took a ministerial position in the hated Federal government.)

    The only document the Bloc signed was, "A Policy Accord to Address the Economic Crisis." After Harper buckled and prorogued, he came back and presented to the House pretty much the same thing, re-branded as the Economic Action Plan. Harper had no problem with what the Bloc signed – except that he failed to do it first. And he's been crowing about it ever since.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/r

    The photo used in the Conservative ad is NOT of the three parties agreeing to a coalition. That's a lie. It's about the stimulus package Harper later embraced.

    Damnable liars, these Conservatives.

  21. a) A fight for second between Liberals and NDP is a Conservative wet dream.

    b) I'm going to take it as a compliment that some of you think I'm so good here on my personal spare time that you accuse me of being a professional party operative. Thank you.

    • If the CPC are so happy about this, why are they attacking Layton?

      • He's in the spotlight now. He becomes the face of the coalition that can only be stopped by a CPC majority. lol

      • Nobody gets a pass Gayle. In fact Ignatieff is so desperate he is even making hay out of Jack's support for the gun registry and how that must make the Montreal massacre victims feel. Desperation? You bet.

      • It shows they are taking his surge in the polls seriously, rather than the media that keep talking about how the NDP always surge and then the voters bleed off to the LPC. (Gidget & Grandpa being prime examples)

      • Because he's threatening to pick up Tory seats on Vancouver Island, the Vancouver suburbs, Prairie cities, a few small-city Ontario ridings, and a scattering of others (South Shore NS?)

        That would undo some of the "good" that is achieved, if you're a Tory, by Liberal-NDP vote-splitting allowing Tories to run up the middle in other ridings.

        The Tories need the NDP to be strong. But not tooooo strong.

  22. Just 10 days to go! And we at The War Room® have been working on a tool that will assist all in their commenting. It's called the Dennis_F-inator (v 001). Annoyed with smarmy posting you don't agree with? Fed up with Lieberals and Libranos? No worries! In it's entirety, or in any random combination you choose, simply post the following:

    "Wow! Geez! Detestable. Vicious. Smears. You lot. Nonsense. Didn't they? Haters. Desperate. Make things up. Liar. $300 Million election. 7 Years? Why are you? Harper bashers. Fascinating, isn't it? What is this, Cuba? God. Thank you. lol Next! "

    Works every time! We will be de-bugging the device, but feel it's timely release is timely. Try it! Your ideological opponents will wither!

    You are welcome!

    Sincerely,
    The War Room, Inc.®

    • Didn't you forget 'today's compassionate left' ?

      Or is that a v002 feature / upgrade.

      (Or maybe its a competing product – the Chet_inator)

      • Thanks, NL! We at The War Room@ take great pride in our offerings. And we are always looking for helpful suggestions! And yours surely fit the bill!

        Unfortunately, we tried a Chetinchattinator (code name: ChetChat). But it responded oddly. And we couldn't get the stirring bagpipe sound right.

        But don't worry! We're still tryin"! In the meantime, keep on Dennis_F-ecating!

        You are welcome!

        Sincerely,
        The War Room, Inc.®

  23. This ad was first uoloaded to youtube on January 16 under the title "NDP Ambition"

  24. Seems like this commercial could apply to Stephen Harper. They say Ambition is Blind!

    • Unless you're Bruce Carson. Then it's blonde!

  25. Wow. Dippers must be threatening a lot of Tory seats for this to emerge.

    Where, I wonder? SK? BC? Redmonton?

  26. Am I supposed to be scandalized by a separatist calling Canada "ruinous"?

    I'd rather be scandalized by a supposed federalist, who's "here for Canada", who called Canada a "northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term".

    • SHHHHH. Old quotes only count if Iggy says them.

  27. Layton didn't tell us about the coalition until after the election??? The coalition first came up in reaction to the budget presented by Harper in November 2008, the one he went to see the GG to prorogue Parliament. What election??? If these people could tell the difference between the truth and a lie, they might not seem to be such total numbnuts.

    • "What election???" That would be the OCTOBER 2008 election.

  28. If anyone takes a serious look at lying Jack's promises they would see a bankrupt Canada in their future. Just promising to double every on'e's CPP/OAS but taxing it away on the so called "rich" would more than double the current deficit in two years. Jack finally needs to be under the spotlight for people to see his BS.

    • Here we go again – the Cons refuse to let the facts get in the way of the truth – as they see it.

    • .
      Oh yes, China taxes the tar outa the rich (=20K/year at 45% tax), and we see China just reeling under its massive debt load.

      Haperism, Thatcherism, Reaganism. UNelect Harper permanently.
      .

  29. Can we please have some new, real intellectuals who are good problem solvers, whole hearted and honorable candidates who have not been experienced(corrupted) by todays political circles and private sector funding…..who strive to uphold rights and morals that everyone has grown up with. Intellectuals who look after Canada and not worry about their reelection

    • No.

      Now go away.

  30. .
    Un-elect Harper. We don't need attack ads in Canada.

    God forbid the NDP imitate this Tea Party model.
    .

  31. .
    No, Macleans. I'm not clicking on the attack ad video.

    If you post a snuff-video I won't click on that either.
    .