155

‘This isn’t about Stephen Harper’


 

The latest Liberal spot.


 

‘This isn’t about Stephen Harper’

  1. If "this isn't about Stephen Harper" then why is Iggy running an ad that is only about Stephen Harper?

    [youtube UzoLVNs1eGI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzoLVNs1eGI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL youtube]

    And if this isn't about Iggy himself, why is he even in the ad, and why did he force this election in the first place, especially after coming back from over 30 years of living elsewhere? Wow.

    While we're at it, the slogan: Your family. Your Liberals.

    Kind of sounds cultish to me. Why do we have to be a part of some kind of Liberal family? This is politics. It's not religion .

  2. If "this isn't about Stephen Harper" then why is Iggy running an ad that is only about Stephen Harper?

    [youtube UzoLVNs1eGI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzoLVNs1eGI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL youtube]

    And if this isn't about Iggy himself, why is he even in the ad, and why did he force this election in the first place, especially after coming back from over 30 years of living elsewhere? Wow.

    While we're at it, the slogan: Your family. Your Liberals.

    Kind of sounds cultish to me. Why do we have to be a part of some kind of Liberal family? This is politics. It's not religion .

    • DennisF: Drunk with Tory spin.

      • As "Andre" spits on my post instead of addressing any part of it. This is why we're having our fourth $300 million election in seven years, is it? Wow.

        • I'm addressing your post as much as you're addressing the Liberal ad.

          "We address familly issues" = "we're a cult"? come off it.

          • Really. Let me repeat the points you spat on and absolutely can't address:

            a) If it's not about Stephen Harper, why is he running an ad only about Stephen Harper?

            b) If it's not about Iggy, why is he even in the add, or forcing the election in the first place?

            c) This is the slogan: Your family. Your Liberals.

            That's just weird to me. They're not my family. Why are they trying to be one?

            Next.

          • a) the add is about childcare and learning, not about Stephen Harper.

            b) Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the Liberal Party and that was a Liberal Party ad

            c) You don't like the ad. Big deal. I don't like Stephen Harper singing "Imagine" when the lyrics express the antithesis of what Harper does.

            This is really pretty simple. Non-Conservatives understand it. Why can't you?

          • Again, if "this isn't about Stephen Harper" why is Iggy running an ad that is specifically about Stephen Harper. It's not this ad, it's the ad that I posted above. What is it about this point that you don't comprehend?

            I know many of you on here hate Harper. I still don't think this is a basis upon which to debate this election, or even justify it in the first place.

          • You love Harper. I mean you LOVE Harper. We got it ;)

          • No, I'm not gay. Next.

          • THIS ISN'T ABOUT STEPHEN HARPER. IT IS ABOUT CHILDCARE AND LEARNING. OTHER THINGS ARE ABOUT STEPHEN HARPER. LIKE DISRESPECTING DEMOCRACY AND PARLIAMENT AND LYING TO GET MORE VOTES. THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER, ISN'T. IT IS ABOUT CHILDCARE AND LEARING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

            Sorry about raising my internet voice, but you just weren't hearing what I was saying.

          • In other words, if someone dares to challenge your Liberal claim to power, YOU GET ALL OUTRAGED AND FEEL A NEED TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS.

            NEXT!

          • I'm not outraged (my post was intended to be humorous), I am not a Liberal (I have never belonged to any political party and have voted for the PC, Liberal, NDP, Green and Independent candidates in elections), and I make no claim to power (I thought that after 2008 that was a Conservative claim, as ''only the party that won the most seats can form the government" according to them).

            Loosen' up, fella, It's a political ad! Or are you implying that all of the Conservative ads are 100% true and not misleading in any way?

          • You typed in all caps, but I'm the one who needs to relax. lol.

            And if you're not a Liberal, why are you voicing their talking points, and in capital letters to boot?

            What some people try to get away with on here.

            Of course, you're more than welcome to stop posting anonymously and verify who you actually are. Otherwise, your claims about your background lack a certain verifiability, don't they.

          • I know you are but what am I? Lol. next! Rofl. Lmao. Omg. Next.
            Why? Why? Sob sob. Adscam. Leftist media elites. No one understands me. Sob sob.
            Next. Rofl. Just visiting, sooo clever. Lol. Next.

          • I personally find it amazing that this is all some of you have in justifying the fourth $300 million election in seven years. Truly amazing. Next.

          • If the Conservatives could set policy that favors more than their limited clientele ,perhaps we wouldn't need these electio ns. As the government they get to set the agenda…it's unfortunate that they can't seem to think of most Canadians as they do so.

          • it's called Democracy Dennis……..elections are ALWAYS justified in a Democratic society….gawd you are such a whiner….

          • So, you were good with the 2006 election (second in two years) and the 2008 election (third in four years) since they were caused by the Conservatives, but all of a sudden we can't afford elections? Truly amazing. Next.

          • Don't try explaining anything to Dennis. He knows the difference between positive and negative ads, but he's on a koolaid high, and just wants to argue. Best to just ignore him.

          • In other words, you don't have to be accountable for your attacks. Only the other side does. Fascinating.

          • See? He's been drinking, and so he goes trolling and gets belligerent looking for an argument.

          • Why do you have to resort to this garbage? Why is it so hard for you to simply justify your attacks? Then you have the gall to suggest that it's Harper who is unaccountable and undemocratic. Unbelievable.

          • Yeah, yeah yeah…drink up.

          • GALL!! Maybe you should buy a thesaurus?

          • Maybe you should buy an argument instead of resorting to this anonymous BS. lol. Thanks. Next.

          • I know, like, totally. I mean, can you believe this guy? Like, lol, i mean seriously. Next! Good one dennis my boy. Haha, like, how dare he resort to, like, mud slinging, like, hello? haha, lol, The gall, i mean…its like, galling, right? All of us like me, are, like, so with you dennis.

          • I didn't realize I made some people so angry. Hi!

          • So everytime the Liberals mention their leader or Steven Harper then it automatically means that the Liberals entire campaign platform is about Iggnatieff and Harper?

            Should I take it to mean Harper wants a coalition?

          • How did we get from Iggy directly contradicting himself on this election being about Stephen Harper to Harper wanting a coalition? I said from the beginning that the opposition had nothing to run on in this election, and you're just proving that point for me. Thank you.

          • How did you get Ignatieff contradicting himself? And Harper now wants a coalition? I am not surprised, as he also wanted one in 1997 and 2004.

          • I tried really hard to figure out how one ad about Harper(friend, let me be very clear, the ad is about what the Harper government's actions in power, not how he left the country for 30 years and has Russian parents and ties with Harvard and came back only to be prime minister) in a whole campaign of policies (you can't have missed them, they were all above the video you found) translate to their whole campaign being about Harper…

            … because that's what holds your point together, the idea that Ighafi's entire campaign is about Harper.

            So since we're in the business of baseless conclusions…

          • Boy, it's like talking to brainwashed children. Again, if this election isn't about Harper, why a full ad just about Harper? Here you are constantly attacking Harper, but you can't even account for Ignatieff's blatant misrepresentations.

            I never thought I'd see the day when it's the opposition that is more out of touch than the government in power. Harper has truly been blessed by the quality of his enemies.

          • Wow! A full ad! Only for Harper! It's as though the other 30 ads about schools, health care, the economy, international relations just don't exist!

            Come on, friend, let me be very clear, where have I attacked Harper?

          • Yes, a full ad in which it's all about Harper, the exact opposite of what he says in this ad. For all the attacks people like you make against Harper's credibility, can't you at least admit that Iggy was caught on this one? Or are you only interested in sticking it to political opponents? And is that why we're having this election? There has to be some reason, right?

          • So if 1 ad in 30 about Harper makes an entire electoral platform about Harper, what does 30 ad in 30 about Ignatieff makes Harper's campaign about? does that mean Harper has no plan for the economy or the deficit or for our nation's security? My god, friend, let me be very clear. Have you no faith in your idol?

            People like me, huh? How do they resemble me so well that would have you confuse my defense of this ad for discreditation of Harper?

          • seems to be so since it is about all he can talk about.

        • Please don't say "4th election in seven years". It's actually the 4th election in 11 years — you have to count the in-between years consistently. Otherwise, you could complain about a majority by saying "2nd election in 5 years." It's technically true, but only if you pretend the years before don't matter.

    • Well, this seems extremely cultish to me:

      Not all Canadians are welcome to go see and hear Stephen Harper. Conservative organizers check their facebook page for anything incriminating them as less then true believers.
      http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/decision2011/2011

      At first I thought it was a prank but Dimitri Soudas is willing and eager to apologize. Makes it look credible to me.

      • Tell me something. Are you actually a "practical mom" or are you a party agitator pretending to be one and not signing up for an actual account? Just wondering.

        • Dennis_ if she was a party agitator she'd be one of youse. Considering how your democratically challenged crew has built its complete campaign around ads about Ignatieff, while adding a few coming attractions for 2015, I think you owe us all an apology.
          Don't worry — just like chicken Harper, we won't expect it.

          • lol

            a) We have no idea if she is in fact a "she."

            b) Why do some of you take politics so personally, almost religious-like, and engage in these over-the-top smears of political opponents? It only hurts your own credibility, and verifies the fact that the only reason we're having this election is because the opposition can't stand Harper.

        • Well, that's the first time I've ever laughed at a post from you.

          I'd make a pretty poor agitator since I post very irregularly.

          It is hard to believe that there is any truth to this facebook checking. Personally, I take full responsibility for what I say or do but if there was zero chance of me being responsible there is zero chance that I would apologize. So Dimitri apologizing shocks me. Checking up on people attending a rally seems far more cultish than a slogan.

          This, to me, should become the ballot question. My kids think I'm a freak because my views differ so far from the norm. I have to agree with them but I'm too old to change now.

          • That's funny, because I've been on here for years, and have never seen your name before. Furthermore, you don't have a sign-in account. You're just some anonymous poster who can literally be just about anyone, right? In addition, reciting these talking points doesn't really vouch for your so-called independence. Just saying.

          • Exactly. I post infrequently so its easy to believe you've never read any of mine.

            I doubt that a sign in account removes any chance of anonymity. I likely could sign in with any name.

            I don't care what you believe about me. I post to exchange ideas and I'm not too interested in knowing who the posters are in the real world. Their posts make me laugh, make me think and make me consider different points of view. If you don't like mine, don't read them.

          • I've been on here for years and haven't seen your name once. Anonymous agitators often come on here and post with a name that's supposed to be part of the topic. They think they're being clever that way. A sign-in account would force to to sign in with the same name every time, so that we know who you are on a consistent basis. You obviously refuse to do that. People pull all kinds of things on these kinds of boards. You'd be surprised. Actually, no you wouldn't. lol

          • I can't help it if you don't read carefully. I know I posted just a few days ago. It was the Aaron's blog "Runaway Train."

            I promise. Every time I've posted here, I've used the same name. Though I don't know why that's at all important. Like I said, I think it's the thought that counts not the name.

          • Because "practical mom" sounds like a name you just made up. That's why.

          • You moron. Practical Mom has been posting here for some time. If you ever stopped your braying jackass routine you might hear what other people are saying from time to time. God, but you are an obnoxious idiot!

          • Wow Dennis, have you been working for the conservatives on those background checks for rally attendees? You seem really passionate about knowing who people are. Maybe it's in the training. If this is such an important area for the conservatives to spend their time and money on, can I ask why they were so sloppy with their background checks on senior aides?

            Anywho practical mom, as an infrequent poster myself, I'll admit I've seen your handle around. You've always seemed practical and mom-ish and that good enough for me.

    • As- Ho– was out of the Counry for 35 years, not 30.

  3. This is another good one, and something every parent needs.

  4. This is another good one, and something every parent needs.

    • Yes, you say this about every Liberal ad. We got it.

      • Unlike you of course.

  5. Yes, you say this about every Liberal ad. We got it.

  6. Unlike you of course.

  7. DennisF: Drunk with Tory spin.

  8. As "Andre" spits on my post instead of addressing any part of it. This is why we're having our fourth $300 million election in seven years, is it? Wow.

  9. oh I don't know I don't think Harper has gone too far YET !!!! how many points is ahead of Iggy and growing so far – see the trend line at nanos – poor Iggy the faster he peddles the liberal kool aid the less of it his supporters are drinking :)

  10. oh I don't know I don't think Harper has gone too far YET !!!! how many points is ahead of Iggy and growing so far – see the trend line at nanos – poor Iggy the faster he peddles the liberal kool aid the less of it his supporters are drinking :)

    • Leger: Tories slipping away from majority: Con 37% Lib 26% Ndp 18% …
      Nanos: Tories inching closer to majority: Con 42.8 % Lib 28.4 % Ndp 16.4 %

      Decima 35-28 today

    • Anyone speaks 'Malibu's Most Wanted'?

    • OMG! The Conservatives are still ahead and there is only a month until the election! All is lost!

  11. I'm addressing your post as much as you're addressing the Liberal ad.

    "We address familly issues" = "we're a cult"? come off it.

  12. Really. Let me repeat the points you spat on and absolutely can't address:

    a) If it's not about Stephen Harper, why is he running an ad only about Stephen Harper?

    b) If it's not about Iggy, why is he even in the add, or forcing the election in the first place?

    c) This is the slogan: Your family. Your Liberals.

    That's just weird to me. They're not my family. Why are they trying to be one?

    Next.

  13. Leger: Tories slipping away from majority: Con 37% Lib 26% Ndp 18% …
    Nanos: Tories inching closer to majority: Con 42.8 % Lib 28.4 % Ndp 16.4 %

    Decima 35-28 today

  14. Anyone speaks 'Malibu's Most Wanted'?

  15. This is the kind of thing people want to hear about…not Parliamentary arguments, or political squabbling…..but something useful, something for everyday.

  16. This is the kind of thing people want to hear about…not Parliamentary arguments, or political squabbling…..but something useful, something for everyday.

  17. a) the add is about childcare and learning, not about Stephen Harper.

    b) Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the Liberal Party and that was a Liberal Party ad

    c) You don't like the ad. Big deal. I don't like Stephen Harper singing "Imagine" when the lyrics express the antithesis of what Harper does.

    This is really pretty simple. Non-Conservatives understand it. Why can't you?

  18. So everytime the Liberals mention their leader or Steven Harper then it automatically means that the Liberals entire campaign platform is about Iggnatieff and Harper?

    Should I take it to mean Harper wants a coalition?

  19. OMG! The Conservatives are still ahead and there is only a month until the election! All is lost!

  20. Again, if "this isn't about Stephen Harper" why is Iggy running an ad that is specifically about Stephen Harper. It's not this ad, it's the ad that I posted above. What is it about this point that you don't comprehend?

    I know many of you on here hate Harper. I still don't think this is a basis upon which to debate this election, or even justify it in the first place.

  21. How did we get from Iggy directly contradicting himself on this election being about Stephen Harper to Harper wanting a coalition? I said from the beginning that the opposition had nothing to run on in this election, and you're just proving that point for me. Thank you.

  22. You love Harper. I mean you LOVE Harper. We got it ;)

  23. Content aside, whomever the Liberals hired for this ad campaign has made some pretty sharp looking ads. Not as sharp as the NDP ones mind you (they're always nice to look at), but far better than Liberal ads in recent memory and much better than the Conservatives (the photo montage style of the positive ads is a little stilted for me – and the ballot graphic at the start is star-wipe level on the cringe scale :)

  24. Content aside, whomever the Liberals hired for this ad campaign has made some pretty sharp looking ads. Not as sharp as the NDP ones mind you (they're always nice to look at), but far better than Liberal ads in recent memory and much better than the Conservatives (the photo montage style of the positive ads is a little stilted for me – and the ballot graphic at the start is star-wipe level on the cringe scale :)

  25. This just makes me want a law against all political ads (a la Rex Murphy) …

  26. This just makes me want a law against all political ads (a la Rex Murphy) …

    • I too want to ban Rex Murphy. Where do I sign up?

  27. THIS ISN'T ABOUT STEPHEN HARPER. IT IS ABOUT CHILDCARE AND LEARNING. OTHER THINGS ARE ABOUT STEPHEN HARPER. LIKE DISRESPECTING DEMOCRACY AND PARLIAMENT AND LYING TO GET MORE VOTES. THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER, ISN'T. IT IS ABOUT CHILDCARE AND LEARING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

    Sorry about raising my internet voice, but you just weren't hearing what I was saying.

  28. How did you get Ignatieff contradicting himself? And Harper now wants a coalition? I am not surprised, as he also wanted one in 1997 and 2004.

  29. Ignatieff is the Road Runner. He will watch Wile E. Coyote drop off a cliff to his electoral doom. Meep, meep.

  30. Ignatieff is the Road Runner. He will watch Wile E. Coyote drop off a cliff to his electoral doom. Meep, meep.

  31. In other words, if someone dares to challenge your Liberal claim to power, YOU GET ALL OUTRAGED AND FEEL A NEED TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS.

    NEXT!

  32. seems to be so since it is about all he can talk about.

  33. I'm not outraged (my post was intended to be humorous), I am not a Liberal (I have never belonged to any political party and have voted for the PC, Liberal, NDP, Green and Independent candidates in elections), and I make no claim to power (I thought that after 2008 that was a Conservative claim, as ''only the party that won the most seats can form the government" according to them).

    Loosen' up, fella, It's a political ad! Or are you implying that all of the Conservative ads are 100% true and not misleading in any way?

  34. You typed in all caps, but I'm the one who needs to relax. lol.

    And if you're not a Liberal, why are you voicing their talking points, and in capital letters to boot?

    What some people try to get away with on here.

    Of course, you're more than welcome to stop posting anonymously and verify who you actually are. Otherwise, your claims about your background lack a certain verifiability, don't they.

  35. Liberal family early learning and indoctrination of you're children. Yeah, thats not too cultish or anything. What's next from the Liberals?… A portrait of Pierre Trudeau in every classroom?

  36. Liberal family early learning and indoctrination of you're children. Yeah, thats not too cultish or anything. What's next from the Liberals?… A portrait of Pierre Trudeau in every classroom?

    • It's school…same as school always is.

      And in this country the only portrait likely to be in a classroom is the Queen.

    • regarding learning….

      you are = you're

  37. Don't try explaining anything to Dennis. He knows the difference between positive and negative ads, but he's on a koolaid high, and just wants to argue. Best to just ignore him.

  38. It's school…same as school always is.

    And in this country the only portrait likely to be in a classroom is the Queen.

  39. I know you are but what am I? Lol. next! Rofl. Lmao. Omg. Next.
    Why? Why? Sob sob. Adscam. Leftist media elites. No one understands me. Sob sob.
    Next. Rofl. Just visiting, sooo clever. Lol. Next.

  40. In other words, you don't have to be accountable for your attacks. Only the other side does. Fascinating.

  41. I personally find it amazing that this is all some of you have in justifying the fourth $300 million election in seven years. Truly amazing. Next.

  42. Please don't say "4th election in seven years". It's actually the 4th election in 11 years — you have to count the in-between years consistently. Otherwise, you could complain about a majority by saying "2nd election in 5 years." It's technically true, but only if you pretend the years before don't matter.

  43. See? He's been drinking, and so he goes trolling and gets belligerent looking for an argument.

  44. Well, this seems extremely cultish to me:

    Not all Canadians are welcome to go see and hear Stephen Harper. Conservative organizers check their facebook page for anything incriminating them as less then true believers.
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/decision2011/2011

    At first I thought it was a prank but Dimitri Soudas is willing and eager to apologize. Makes it look credible to me.

  45. Why do you have to resort to this garbage? Why is it so hard for you to simply justify your attacks? Then you have the gall to suggest that it's Harper who is unaccountable and undemocratic. Unbelievable.

  46. Tell me something. Are you actually a "practical mom" or are you a party agitator pretending to be one and not signing up for an actual account? Just wondering.

  47. Yeah, yeah yeah…drink up.

  48. Dennis_ if she was a party agitator she'd be one of youse. Considering how your democratically challenged crew has built its complete campaign around ads about Ignatieff, while adding a few coming attractions for 2015, I think you owe us all an apology.
    Don't worry — just like chicken Harper, we won't expect it.

  49. I tried really hard to figure out how one ad about Harper(friend, let me be very clear, the ad is about what the Harper government's actions in power, not how he left the country for 30 years and has Russian parents and ties with Harvard and came back only to be prime minister) in a whole campaign of policies (you can't have missed them, they were all above the video you found) translate to their whole campaign being about Harper…

    … because that's what holds your point together, the idea that Ighafi's entire campaign is about Harper.

    So since we're in the business of baseless conclusions…

  50. I too want to ban Rex Murphy. Where do I sign up?

  51. Well, that's the first time I've ever laughed at a post from you.

    I'd make a pretty poor agitator since I post very irregularly.

    It is hard to believe that there is any truth to this facebook checking. Personally, I take full responsibility for what I say or do but if there was zero chance of me being responsible there is zero chance that I would apologize. So Dimitri apologizing shocks me. Checking up on people attending a rally seems far more cultish than a slogan.

    This, to me, should become the ballot question. My kids think I'm a freak because my views differ so far from the norm. I have to agree with them but I'm too old to change now.

  52. lol

    a) We have no idea if she is in fact a "she."

    b) Why do some of you take politics so personally, almost religious-like, and engage in these over-the-top smears of political opponents? It only hurts your own credibility, and verifies the fact that the only reason we're having this election is because the opposition can't stand Harper.

  53. That's funny, because I've been on here for years, and have never seen your name before. Furthermore, you don't have a sign-in account. You're just some anonymous poster who can literally be just about anyone, right? In addition, reciting these talking points doesn't really vouch for your so-called independence. Just saying.

  54. Boy, it's like talking to brainwashed children. Again, if this election isn't about Harper, why a full ad just about Harper? Here you are constantly attacking Harper, but you can't even account for Ignatieff's blatant misrepresentations.

    I never thought I'd see the day when it's the opposition that is more out of touch than the government in power. Harper has truly been blessed by the quality of his enemies.

  55. GALL!! Maybe you should buy a thesaurus?

  56. Maybe you should buy an argument instead of resorting to this anonymous BS. lol. Thanks. Next.

  57. Exactly. I post infrequently so its easy to believe you've never read any of mine.

    I doubt that a sign in account removes any chance of anonymity. I likely could sign in with any name.

    I don't care what you believe about me. I post to exchange ideas and I'm not too interested in knowing who the posters are in the real world. Their posts make me laugh, make me think and make me consider different points of view. If you don't like mine, don't read them.

  58. I've been on here for years and haven't seen your name once. Anonymous agitators often come on here and post with a name that's supposed to be part of the topic. They think they're being clever that way. A sign-in account would force to to sign in with the same name every time, so that we know who you are on a consistent basis. You obviously refuse to do that. People pull all kinds of things on these kinds of boards. You'd be surprised. Actually, no you wouldn't. lol

  59. I can't help it if you don't read carefully. I know I posted just a few days ago. It was the Aaron's blog "Runaway Train."

    I promise. Every time I've posted here, I've used the same name. Though I don't know why that's at all important. Like I said, I think it's the thought that counts not the name.

  60. Wow! A full ad! Only for Harper! It's as though the other 30 ads about schools, health care, the economy, international relations just don't exist!

    Come on, friend, let me be very clear, where have I attacked Harper?

  61. Because "practical mom" sounds like a name you just made up. That's why.

  62. Yes, a full ad in which it's all about Harper, the exact opposite of what he says in this ad. For all the attacks people like you make against Harper's credibility, can't you at least admit that Iggy was caught on this one? Or are you only interested in sticking it to political opponents? And is that why we're having this election? There has to be some reason, right?

  63. I know, like, totally. I mean, can you believe this guy? Like, lol, i mean seriously. Next! Good one dennis my boy. Haha, like, how dare he resort to, like, mud slinging, like, hello? haha, lol, The gall, i mean…its like, galling, right? All of us like me, are, like, so with you dennis.

  64. I didn't realize I made some people so angry. Hi!

  65. So if 1 ad in 30 about Harper makes an entire electoral platform about Harper, what does 30 ad in 30 about Ignatieff makes Harper's campaign about? does that mean Harper has no plan for the economy or the deficit or for our nation's security? My god, friend, let me be very clear. Have you no faith in your idol?

    People like me, huh? How do they resemble me so well that would have you confuse my defense of this ad for discreditation of Harper?

  66. If the Conservatives could set policy that favors more than their limited clientele ,perhaps we wouldn't need these electio ns. As the government they get to set the agenda…it's unfortunate that they can't seem to think of most Canadians as they do so.

  67. You moron. Practical Mom has been posting here for some time. If you ever stopped your braying jackass routine you might hear what other people are saying from time to time. God, but you are an obnoxious idiot!

  68. Wow Dennis, have you been working for the conservatives on those background checks for rally attendees? You seem really passionate about knowing who people are. Maybe it's in the training. If this is such an important area for the conservatives to spend their time and money on, can I ask why they were so sloppy with their background checks on senior aides?

    Anywho practical mom, as an infrequent poster myself, I'll admit I've seen your handle around. You've always seemed practical and mom-ish and that good enough for me.

  69. I enjoyed this ad. Cute kid, crayons…. I found myself grinning at her antics. Reminded me of my kid, which I'm sure is exactly what it was meant to do. I really like the 'Family pack' name too. It's catchy. It will sell well to young families.

  70. I enjoyed this ad. Cute kid, crayons…. I found myself grinning at her antics. Reminded me of my kid, which I'm sure is exactly what it was meant to do. I really like the 'Family pack' name too. It's catchy. It will sell well to young families.

  71. Iggy is running the add about Mr. Harper because he is an As- Ho–.

  72. Iggy is running the add about Mr. Harper because he is an As- Ho–.

    • This comment says more about you and the Harper supporters than it does about Ignatieff Sally.

  73. As- Ho– was out of the Counry for 35 years, not 30.

  74. And he was a Communist…..Too bad Iggy hasn't got the brains to figure out his own campaign he has to go back 40 years to copy a communist.

  75. And he was a Communist…..Too bad Iggy hasn't got the brains to figure out his own campaign he has to go back 40 years to copy a communist.

    • So…because of these ads he's now Brezhnev?

  76. —–In order for a person (or party) to qualify for a Federal job in Canada, are they not investigated by the RCMP and a security check done on them?? The higher the position they qualify for the security checks become more,……In depth??

    —– Are the finances of an individual (party) past and present, not part of this investigation??

    ______________________________________________________
    (CTV.ca News Staff (SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL – TOTAL AMOUNT OF THEFT )
    2. Date: Wed. May. 25 2005 7:43 AM ET
    The total amount of money lost in the sponsorship scandal now appears to be $355 million — $100 million more than was originally thought.
    "If you didn't like the sponsorship program to begin with, you've now got about a hundred million more reasons to not like it," CTV's Jed Kahane said Tuesday.
    The new figure of $355 million is from the forensic accounting firm, Kroll Lindquist Avey, which was hired by the Gomery commission to examine sponsorship spending between 1994 and 2004.)

  77. How can the LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA, qualify to run for the “highest position in our country”, when in fact they still owe the Canadian Tax Payer ($ 140,000,000,00) million dollars which is part of a THEFT of ( $ 355,000,000.00) million they were involved in re the “SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL” that they participated in the last time they were in power..

  78. —–In order for a person (or party) to qualify for a Federal job in Canada, are they not investigated by the RCMP and a security check done on them?? The higher the position they qualify for the security checks become more,……In depth??

    —– Are the finances of an individual (party) past and present, not part of this investigation??

    ______________________________________________________
    (CTV.ca News Staff (SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL – TOTAL AMOUNT OF THEFT )
    2. Date: Wed. May. 25 2005 7:43 AM ET
    The total amount of money lost in the sponsorship scandal now appears to be $355 million — $100 million more than was originally thought.
    "If you didn't like the sponsorship program to begin with, you've now got about a hundred million more reasons to not like it," CTV's Jed Kahane said Tuesday.
    The new figure of $355 million is from the forensic accounting firm, Kroll Lindquist Avey, which was hired by the Gomery commission to examine sponsorship spending between 1994 and 2004.)

  79. How can the LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA, qualify to run for the “highest position in our country”, when in fact they still owe the Canadian Tax Payer ($ 140,000,000,00) million dollars which is part of a THEFT of ( $ 355,000,000.00) million they were involved in re the “SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL” that they participated in the last time they were in power..

  80. So…because of these ads he's now Brezhnev?

  81. LIBERAL PARTY DIRTY LITTLE SECRET
    SENATOR CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FRAUD & BREACH OF TRUST
    Lavigne, a Quebecer appointed to the Red Chamber in 2002 by the LIBERALS, was initially suspended from the Senate more than three years ago after being charged recently (Mar/2011) with obstruction of justice, fraud and breach of trust
    Crown prosecutor Jonathan Brunet said Lavigne cheated $17,986.50 from the Senate by claiming unlawful expenses. & charging taxpayers for $315,355.00 in travel & office expenses. Could receive up to 14 years in prison.

  82. LIBERAL PARTY DIRTY LITTLE SECRET
    SENATOR CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FRAUD & BREACH OF TRUST
    Lavigne, a Quebecer appointed to the Red Chamber in 2002 by the LIBERALS, was initially suspended from the Senate more than three years ago after being charged recently (Mar/2011) with obstruction of justice, fraud and breach of trust
    Crown prosecutor Jonathan Brunet said Lavigne cheated $17,986.50 from the Senate by claiming unlawful expenses. & charging taxpayers for $315,355.00 in travel & office expenses. Could receive up to 14 years in prison.

  83. it's called Democracy Dennis……..elections are ALWAYS justified in a Democratic society….gawd you are such a whiner….

  84. regarding learning….

    you are = you're

  85. This comment says more about you and the Harper supporters than it does about Ignatieff Sally.

  86. I guess that Liberal MP who crossed the floor (Genco??) and joined up with the Conservative MP in Vaughan, Mr. Fantino…..was correct when he said the Liberals are" living in the past". They must be when they start bringing up Trudeau the communist who ran our country into the hole. Can't Iggy think for himself and put together his own plan. and we want this person running our country. ???

  87. I guess that Liberal MP who crossed the floor (Genco??) and joined up with the Conservative MP in Vaughan, Mr. Fantino…..was correct when he said the Liberals are" living in the past". They must be when they start bringing up Trudeau the communist who ran our country into the hole. Can't Iggy think for himself and put together his own plan. and we want this person running our country. ???

  88. Last number of posts an illustration of shutting down debate; the minions have learned from the master, Stephen.

  89. Last number of posts an illustration of shutting down debate; the minions have learned from the master, Stephen.

  90. Hey con bot – your circuits are showing! Genco was never an MP, but a candidate for the Liberal party. He lost the nomination for this election and decided to throw a tantrum.

    Keep it up Josh, you're not being too obvious or anything.

  91. Hey con bot – your circuits are showing! Genco was never an MP, but a candidate for the Liberal party. He lost the nomination for this election and decided to throw a tantrum.

    Keep it up Josh, you're not being too obvious or anything.

  92. So, you were good with the 2006 election (second in two years) and the 2008 election (third in four years) since they were caused by the Conservatives, but all of a sudden we can't afford elections? Truly amazing. Next.

  93. I agree with your assessment of Harper. He most certainly is!

  94. Do we really want Ignatief? The Liberal, BQ, NDP voted together for a non confidence motion against Harper's government thus forcing an election.

    All this election. Imagine how much tax money they wasted ??
    Harper has the majority vote. After he wins, all our tax money are wasted.

  95. Do we really want Ignatief? The Liberal, BQ, NDP voted together for a non confidence motion against Harper's government thus forcing an election.

    All this election. Imagine how much tax money they wasted ??
    Harper has the majority vote. After he wins, all our tax money are wasted.

Sign in to comment.