It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Don't Vote in the Canadian Election

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 

Thanks for such a great response. The cherry on the sundae is that until you put your post together, I had heard nothing about this. That is our press. Undoubtedly these events were covered piecemeal, but nobody put the whole thing together like a Zola-style J'Accuse!! directed at the government.

There are other bad scandals not covered by the press as well, including despicable ongoing bad treatment of aboriginals in this country. Some clergyman out west made a film about it and got roundly kicked sideways for it.

The press is not interested in this stuff for some whacked out reason.


edit on 18-4-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
My problem is that i don't understand how anyone could truly know what is best for the country, all the economics are so convoluted and complex.

I don't know who to vote for, because , i don't know economically if private health care will be better than free national healthcare. Or if bringing more immigrants to Canada is good for our country or bad. I don't know if the gun registry is effective or actually does anything.

It's very hard to be fully learned in these things and all the repercussions that would happen from the solutions to each individual issue.


I always thought i was liberal, because i smoke weed. But there is so much more to it, and NDP are basically socialists, but i am confused in that they want a smaller government but more free stuff for poor people and immigrants. I guess i don't vote because i feel like i don't know enough to make an educated decision. I even try to do research, did the cbc vote compass, but really learning in depth about each issue is difficult, you have to dig in places that are hard to find on the internet, because MSM just spits out "wishy-washy" statements and things that don't actually inform you of anything.

Am i wrong?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Well I guess the old saying goes "If you don't vote, then don't bitch!". While it's true that our choices aren't great this time round, I guess for me it comes down to what kind of "Democracy" I like. Harper campaigns on how he is a great choice for this country, but is he? He takes credit for the economy but it's amazing what happens when you use $56 Billion of taxpayers money for stimulus. He takes credit for job growth but if you look at those stats you find out that they are part-time jobs replacing full time jobs with benefits. Hardly a good thing for our long term recovery.

What happens now that there is no stimulus spending? Stagnate growth is what's going to happen. Every party has their scandals but the Conservative party takes the cake on that one. That is the deciding factor for me in this election. How does a convicted fellon get top security clearance to work in the PMO? How does a minister not get fired after fraudulently altering a document? How is a government suppose to function when the ruling party doesn't disclose the costs of any of their legislation?

I will be voting Liberal as it's my only real choice. The Liberals did keep us in the BLACK for a decade and it's many of their regulations that helped us through this economic storm. Ignatief might not be the best figure head but the party itself is more fiscally responsible than the Conservatives. Harper's Gov't was in the RED before 2008 so how can you really trust that he'll get us back to surpluses?

While I like Jack Layton, I'll never vote for the NDP as they've ruined every Province they have every touched. I was one of those Idiots that voted in Bob Rae in Ontario and look at the damage he caused to Ontario. Deficit spending is all they know. As for the Green Party, Elizabeth May can't even win her own riding!


So my fellow Canadians, those of you who excercise your right to not vote in this election I hope you're not here or anywhere else bitching about the Gov't of Canada because you didn't help in bringing any change.

And for the Love of God, don't give Harper a majority or this country is over as we know it.

Deez



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
_________________

A minority government would be in the best interest of the
country, in that they will be force to work together.

The last thing the world needs right now is another
emperor with full controlling rule.
In order to break the control, vote for the underdog.

Personally I want to see the Senate gone along
with their pensions and golden parachutes.

__________________
edit on 19/4/11 by ToneDeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Gubmint 101: A Primer for Cherries

There is a great line in the Steven Seagal movie "Above the Law" spoken by character actor, Henry Silva, who plays a CIA doctor, expert in "chemical interrogation" who is about to cut the foot off an uppity Viet Cong captive, when the Seagal character, a Special Forces "observer", starts to object.

Silva, looks over his shoulder, knife in hand, and says, "Who is this cherry?"

Well, life as they say, is "just a bowl of cherries", and we elect them to office, every election.

The Star had a good article recently about the reactions of some former MPs to their time "on the hill".

Former MPs say life on the Hill no party

www.thestar.com...


Based on “exit interviews” with 65 former MPs, the latest report from the Samara democracy-research organization offers a warning to would-be parliamentarians: their dreams of public service could be repeatedly dashed by their own political parties.

“The greatest frustrations they (former MPs) faced during their political careers came from within their own political party,” says the report, titled, “It’s My Party: Parliamentary Dysfunction Reconsidered,” which was obtained by the Star in advance of its release on Monday.


These people, despite their confidence, their optimism, their willingness to serve and desire to do their best for their constituents and the country, really didn't understand how the system works. They were "cherries".


“Decisions from their parties’ leadership were often viewed as opaque, arbitrary and unprofessional and . . . parties’ demands often ran counter to the MPs’ desires to practice politics in a constructive way.”


MPs who see the situation that way have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of "gubmint". They are cherries, who don't know that "government" in the people's interests is an afterthought, a low priority in the system of "gubmint".

To understand "gubmint", it is best to think of it as some kind of wacky TV game show, the sort of thing the Japanese do better than anyone else on earth. The object of the "game" is to carve up and control as much of the national budget as one can. "Gubmint" is really a feeding frenzy on tax dollars.

Any kind of statesmanship, idealism, high mindedness, ethic of service, generosity or honesty is a liability in that game.

"Gubmint" programs are not designed for their utility or pertinence to the needs of people, communities or the nation. They are designed and tailored to conveniently and efficiently carve out chunks of tax dollars in such a way as to be compatible with the removal of other chunks of tax dollars.

These chunks of dollars can have any weird shape or application, much like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

For most MPs, getting money for some project is a lot like coming to a potluck dinner. What you get, in what amount you get it, largely depends on what is available.

For this reason, policy making is driven by considerations which have nothing to do with policy.

Political parties are the major players in the "gubmint" game.


“The biggest message I took from these MPs’ stories is the need to re-examine the role of a political party in our democracy,” she says. “They are extremely important organizations that perform essential democratic functions — engage citizens, select candidates for office, develop and aggregate policy ideas and contest elections — and are heavily supported by public money, yet we rarely ask ourselves if they’re performing these functions in the way we’d like.”


Political parties set the tone. They are responsible for all the evils of "gubmint". They are the ones who deal with organized criminals, lobbyists, pals of pals, unscrupulous contractors and con artists, their own low achieving, knuckle dragging, unemployable relatives, etc.

It's all about soliciting contributions (bribes) to get elected, in return for access to the vast treasure chest of tax dollars represented by the national budget.

A new MP might have a fundamental understanding of how the "gubmint" game is played, a few do, but most of them will not realize just how far behind the eight ball they really are when they jump for joy on the platform of their own riding association, victorious in an election.

Most of the money they plan to spend to make a better country for their contituents is already spent in obligations to a host of big contractors, con men, pals of pals, pimps, thieves, underachieving relatives and scum who payed in advance to get a party elected in return for a manyfold return on their original contribution.

That's how "gubmint" works.

When your MP is elected, in the vast majority of cases, he or she is fighting for scraps left over from the secret, behind the scenes feeding frenzy that happened before the election.

Read Stevie Cameron's On the Take. It's all explained in documented detail.

It doesn't matter how you vote until that system is brought under control. You can't get rid of it. It's the way people are. But it has to be controlled, or the whole system founders and we wind up living in Mexico north.



edit on 19-4-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I am going to vote. I am planning to attend a meeting with Mr. Layton and see what he can say about the biggest problems Canada has now. I hope I will be able to ask at least 1 question. Then, my vote will depend on what I think after the meeting. I know how OP feels about us not being able to bring any change. But...if we are all passive and stay at home doing nothing- change will never come for sure. That's what they want us to be: uncapable of raising our voice, sitting in front of our TVs chewing popcorn and letting others to decide what the world we will be living in.
I have chidlren, so it's not for me. I have to do something about it. I owe myself at least a try to change this world.
I liked the guy here who said something about not complaining after if you didn't vote. He is 100 % right.
Those who said the Harper's Government (that's how he wants us to call OUR Canadian Government, right?) is the best for us today, seem don't know even half of the truth of what is going on and what this Government is doing to you and your country. Wake up, guys, please!!!
edit on 19-4-2011 by quitesane because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Saw a button on someone today... Vote Coalition

I liked that.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by quitesane
I am going to vote.


Me too, barring the unforseen. The title of the thread is something of a provocation. Voting is at least being active in a minimal way. If one votes, at least he or she feels entitled to vent their concerns into the deaf ear turned their way.


I am planning to attend a meeting with Mr. Layton and see what he can say about the biggest problems Canada has now.


The "gimme party" is more about how the pie is sliced and divvied and less about how it is prepared and baked. They think that Canada's problems are problems of distribution of swag. They are the low brow version of the party of "big business", i.e., the party of "big unions". They will never approach power until they become a real party of the left with their own national newspaper and a comprehensive approach to creating a socialist society.

When Jean Chretien mooted the idea of a "guaranteed annual income" he was way more NDP than anyone since Tommy Douglas. I'm very ambivalent about Jack Layton. I think he is driven more than fifty percent by the psychopathology of the alpha male egoist. He is preminently a psychological type rather than a professional politician, in my view. The bellowing, "shout 'em down" style seen in union halls across the country suits him fine. Like all committed lefties, he's a crypto totalitarian.


But...if we are all passive and stay at home doing nothing- change will never come for sure. That's what they want us to be: uncapable of raising our voice, sitting in front of our TVs chewing popcorn and letting others to decide what the world we will be living in.
I have chidlren, so it's not for me. I have to do something about it. I owe myself at least a try to change this world.


I agree. Unfortunately people don't do anything in numbers large enough to count until catastrophe is upon them. There is never timely corrective maintenance done. The outrageous way that the G8/G20 situation was handled last summer, the inflated contracts, secrecy agreements signed with contractors, the legal chicanery and jack booted police brutality around the demonstrators, was a straw that just blew off the back of Canadians.


I liked the guy here who said something about not complaining after if you didn't vote. He is 100 % right.


No. He is 100% wrong. Anyone mad enough not to vote and polite enough not to complain isn't worth a damn anyway.


Those who said the Harper's Government (that's how he wants us to call OUR Canadian Government, right?) is the best for us today, seem don't know even half of the truth of what is going on and what this Government is doing to you and your country. Wake up, guys, please!!!
edit on 19-4-2011 by quitesane because: (no reason given)


That's correct, but it should be kept in mind that our neighbor to the south, since 9/11, has embarked on a comprehensive plan of military conquest designed to ensure its dominance of world geopolitics for the forseeable future. If they turned their sights on us, we wouldn't even be roadkill. We would be a bug on the windshield.

In that overall environment, Prime Minister Harper has to do a lot of things he very likely wouldn't even consider otherwise, like spending a lot of money to save jobs at Lockheed-Martin to tide that company over until they can build a better airplane than the F-35. If Harper has to buy a lot full of Edsels to keep the axe murdering Edsel dealer happy, he will do it, for you and for me.

My beef with him is with the corrupt political system of "gubmint" that he and Iggy and Jack all take part in.
edit on 20-4-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
housing sales just dropped like a rock where I am in Ontario
since there appears to be a major crash coming
the tories have to force an election now
rather then have it happen just BEFORE an elektion
because if the election happened after the crash
the bilderberger Harper/ Conservatives would NEVER be elected to anything again.

Again, if they get a majooority
they will never have to be.


(ha, assimilation is inevitable no matter who gets installed,
but that rang well)



PS BILDERBERGHERS- Communists


edit on 20-4-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
(ha, assimilation is inevitable no matter who gets installed,


I tend to agree. We have an incredibly symbiotic relationship with the US.

The last great Canadian politician, in my view was Jean Chretien. He kept us out of the war in Iraq. He throttled a demonstrator with his own bare hands and his wife Aline clobbered a house breaker (she's Canada's Olivia Harrison).

He was still tainted with financial scandal, but that's "gubmint".
edit on 20-4-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Gubmint 101: The importance of the backbencher in parliament.

In the words of Broderick Crawford, relayed via Jim Carrey and David Letterman, "Punks like you are a dime a dozen."

But your party, in government, will do everything in it's considerable power to convince you otherwise, everything except letting you vote for what is in the interests of your constituents.

You will be cossetted and feasted and have all manner of blandishments dangled in front of you. You will be reminded of party discipline and the need to vote the party line, but this will be offset by promises of rewards of government investment in your area, if you will only be patient.

Finally, after a long wait, most likely just before the next election, when the government can no longer avoid it, you will be tossed a crumb.

This crumb will be much smaller than the portion you expected and it won't be voted on and it won't be an important new initiative. It will be an "add on" appended to a bill which has nothing to do with your constituency and it's concerns.

It really will be a scrap of the leftovers from the secret, clandestine feeding frenzy that every government conducts with cronies and fat cat contributors, before the election.

At the end of the day you will be satisfied with your crust and resolve to be a faithful party lapdog and work your way into the good graces of the powers at the top of the party, or . . . you will walk away discontented, knowing full well that you have just played the part of the "rube" in one of the oldest cons in the world, the bait and switch.

Let's take a case in point. The G8/G20 conference of last summer.

A lot of debts and obligations were dealt with by means of that conference. The government spent roughly 1.1 billion dollars on that conference, under the umbrella of security expenses. The bill for the conference immediately preceding that one, which took place in Philadelphia, was roughly 12 million dollars

Obviously the Canadian government was throwing a lot of money around. An artificial lake and improvements to a resort area outside Toronto, plus large expenses on luxury treatment and security for the leaders attending the conference accounted for a big chunk of the money, . . . 1.1 billion dollars, on a conference!?!?!?

Suppose you were a new MP from Bindertwine, Saskatchewan, or Buckshot, New Brunswick and had been lobbying hard for development in your area, or that the rail service to Bearpaw, Ontario not be cut, wouldn't you be just a little annoyed?

Of course you would. Who got all that money, and for what?

Well, thank God for the Toronto Star, home of watchdog journalism. They reported that all of the money was accounted for, except for the small sum of 247 million dollars . . . and the money that was spent on contractors who had asked the government to sign secrecy agreements forbidding it from revealing their names.

There are probably one or two, non-cherry type new MPs who would be wondering just who would have the power to get a secrecy agreement out of the canadian federal government!?!?!?

Surely, I don't have to remind people just who the canadian federal government is. I will anyway.

They are the ones who send you those nasty demanding letters and turn your whole life upside down if you deviate in any way from the straight and narrow on your tax forms.

Who would have the gall, the balls and the blackjack in their pocket that would enable them to get big inflated contracts and secrecy agreements out of the federal government?

What the heck is going on?

This is the kind of blithering lunacy that a new MP or an MP outside the inner circle faces.

What can you do about it?

The number one thing is to remember Broderick Crawford's words, that despite all appearances to the contrary, despite all flattery, despite all blandishments, despite all promises not in writing, "Punks like you are a dime a dozen," as far as the party in power is concerned.

The next thing is to remember that squeaky wheels get the grease. You have to become trouble, serious trouble. You have to seize the initiative, show the government the point of your stilletto. Show the government that purchasing a punk like you is going to cost a lot more than one twelfth of a dime.

You have to form your own coalition with fellow party members, based on common interests with a view to carving out larger chunks of the budget for your ridings. You may even have to work with opposition members to achieve mutually agreed upon goals.

The upper echelon of your own party is the enemy.

You have to find out what is going on with the way that contracts are being handed out by the government. You have to be an opposition, within the governing party, making sure that the government does not go overboard with payoffs to cronies and skewing government expenditures in weird ways just to make fat cat supporters rich.

These are taxpayers dollars you people are fooling around with. We work hard for that money! To keep your piece from going to some fat cat back room boy or friend of a friend, you will have to work hard too.

Read Stevie Cameron's On the Take. It'll show you what to watch for.

Most of you got elected to make a difference, not to become a corrupt old slug who spent a lifetime in parliament poisoning our country.

Don't fall for the con.

Don't be a cherry. Hold the government's feet to the fire and make them spend our money honestly to benefit this country.
edit on 26-4-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Vote, or don't vote in the election. Doesn't bother me none. But don't think that it isn't important. This might be the most important election in the history of Canada and I'll tell you why.

Harper's Conservative government is in the process of secretly negotiating "deep integration" with the US government. If Harper gets a majority, this deal gets passed. If he gets at least a minority, we can stop this deal. The well-respected Ralph Nader even took it upon himself to write a personal letter to Harper asking why this important negotiation was going on IN SECRET, with absolutely no public debate. Read the letter and a follow-up article also by Nader, and then tell me this election isn't important.

rabble.ca...



The designs of "deep integration" are reflected in your interest in purchasing F-35 fighter jets (already estimated at $29 billion by a Parliamentary office) that has no Canadian defence rationale but serves to help bail out the Pentagon's procurement mess with Lockheed-Martin's delayed, troubled and way over budget aircraft.


www.thestar.com...




Once the U.S. government’s national security scaffolding surrounds Canada, many policy matters will become “national security” priorities. Canadian energy, water, the Canadian Arctic, anti-monopoly enforcement, and Canadian foreign investment policies could be subsumed under “national security” imperatives.


What's at stake here is nothing less than Canadian sovereignty. Harper is counting on voter apathy. Don't help him sell out Canada.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 

It is very difficult to see how Canada can avoid "deep integration" with the United States if the most influential economic interests in the country want that sort of arrangement.

Your post is in effect saying "Vote NDP". Remember, Paul Martin signed the original agreement intended to pave the way for the new economic area of the Americas, the Peace and Prosperity Partnership.

If the major economic interests on the continent want this arrangement, it will be very difficult to stop without severe alterations to the economic life of this country. Harper has recently warned Canadians about the economic consequences of electing the NDP. He may be overstating them in scaremonger fashion, but there will be a big difference between electing an NDP that will cooperate with the US on matters of trade and industry and electing an NDP determined to follow an independant line in such matters.

I would have more confidence in Canada as an independant country, if there were any sign of rugged individualism or an appetite for austere self sufficiency in Canadians. I'm sorry, I don't see it.

Canadians can't resist fascist or corporatist forces in their own communities. They don't boycott globalist companies that export jobs. They don't have their own truly national hockey league. They don't support their own superstars of stage screen and television. They don't protect their sovereignty in the north. They don't realize that Mike Bullard was as good as any talk show host in the US. They don't stay in Canada on their holidays if they can afford to leave. They don't retire in Canada if they can avoid it, at least in the winter.

Canadians are truly world class and worthy of independance in only one area, unearned self respect.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Obviously, you're buying in to the rhetoric; hook, line, and sinker.

If the NDP should happen to form a government, I can assure you that the everyday lives of Canadians will change very little. There will be no economic apocalypse like Harper is warning. Heck, gas just went up $0.30 in the last few weeks. I guess we should blame Harper for that since he's the PM. And he's saying if the NDP get elected it will go up another 10 cents and we should be scared. Well, what about the 30 cents it went up on his watch? There's a disconnect there.

If anything happens in this election other than a Conservative majority, then this deal will, at the very least, be open to public debate. It has nothing to do with Mike Bullard or having our own hockey league. I admit I don't know where you are going with that line of thought.

I'm not sure if you know the entire scope of this deal. Trade is just one part of it, and I have nothing against fair trade. But we definitely can avoid having the US lording over our security. If the US government wants be all paranoid about boogeyman terrorists, then so be it but stay out of our yard.
edit on 1-5-2011 by TheComte because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 

I'm sure that the NDP are not going to do anything drastic to upset the applecart of economics in this country, at least not right away. However it would be foolish to think that the US would not regard their presence as a government as an unwelcome development. There could well be consequences to that alone.

I think Canadians have totally lost perspective on this issue. We are really Siamese twins with the US already. To many in the States we already have an unwelcome, socializing influence on policy down there, with our medical plans, high taxes etc. It's a two way street of unwelcome influences.

The ideal situation for me would be one where we enhance cooperation and closeness in mutually beneficial areas, influencing them as much as they influence us.

I think the horse is long out of the barn as far as trying to maintain a truly independant country goes. We're no Vietnam, ready willing and able to lob artillery shells at anyone big or small and willing to back up our truculence with millions of dead Canadians in a protracted guerilla war for our territory. And thank God for it. I hope we are too smart for that.

After WW2, the great powers offered Chiang Kai Shek the territory of Indochina (Vietnam included). He said "No thankyou, they don't assimilate."

Well, Canadians are the kings of assimilation and have been assimilating for a long time. Let's be smart assimilators. Lets work with our American neighbors to make all of our lives better. Undue, unnatural nationalism is counterproductive in my opinion.
edit on 1-5-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Because elections are purchased, not won, in Canada, using a system perfected in the United States (read all about it in Stevie Cameron's On the Take), ensuring democratic results in any given election means focusing less on "getting the vote out" than on regulating the flow of contributions to the political parties and the corresponding flow of payoffs and patronage to contributors.

We need to have it clearly stated what percentage of government spending is to be allocated in return for given amounts of contributions. Of course this will lead to absurdities. If I own earth moving equipment and give a very large contribution to the Conservative party, I may win a completely absurd contract to build an artificial lake for a tea party being hosted by the government.

For that reason a second level of oversight is required on financial contributions to political parties to insure that the national budget isn't spent on boxes of Smarties or Barbie Dolls, just because the deep pockets owners of companies makeing those products contribute the most to the "war" chest of the governing party. That basically is what happens now.

The government pays off its backers as it sees fit, while trying to maintain an appearance of serious interest in governing and spending the national budget for the good of the country.

In a new bid for the Nobel Prize, (my first attempt, the development of the concept of "contextual anti-semitism" , failed) I want to propose a system of political contribution credits which must be honoured by all parties with reciprocal spending allocated to the owner of those credits.

This new system will mean that if a deep pockets producer of sink stoppers, for example, contributes more than a large construction firm to the coffers of the governing party, the government will not have to puchase a mountain of sink stoppers during their term of office. (This is basically what the Harper government was doing at the G20 last summer, puchasing a mountain of sink stoppers.)

This new system of credits will force whomever is in power at any given time to look at their spending obligations and allocate resources in such a way as to pay off contributors to the various parties' war chests, but at a pace which allows for a rational regime of spending that takes the real needs of the country into account.

This doesn't replace the system of "gubmint", but it rationalizes it, so that the needs of the few with money to contribute, don't overwhelm and distort spending needed for the health and growth of the country and for the improvement of the lot of Canadians as a whole.

It would have analogies with the carbon credits idea.

It has one big stumbling block. It would require the political parties and the people of Canada to come clean about the system of "gubmint". Never underestimate the power of hippocrisy. No one wants to admit that things like "gubmint" happen in nicey nice Canada.

That nitwit from Harvard that the Liberals chose to lead them, had a huge issue to attack the Conservatives with, but didn't choose to use it. Neither did Layton. Why?

Face up to it Canadians.They are all in on "gubmint".

Until that system is organized in a different way, money will continue to be squandered outrageously in this country by no matter who is in power.

edit on 3-5-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
I for one will not be voting.

Then ...
A) You have nothing further to bitch about.
B) You helped give Steve a majority.

Nice work.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by juniperberry

So I will vote, but I intend to spoil it to send a message that no one on the ballot is good enough for me.



That's what I did. There wasn't much room in those little white circles to write what I had to say, but I found a way to fit it all in. It's not the first time I've 'voted' this way.

For me, doing this is a symbolic way of giving me the personal satisfaction of taking part in a democratic process that I am okay with, but also of displaying my recognition that the parties and people involved are corrupt and being manipulated on many levels. To select a 'lesser of all evils' by by putting an 'x' beside any of the names would make me feel as though I am selling out on myself. Won't do it.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
People need to pay attention to Stevie Cameron's book On the Take and think about it. The methodologies described there are currently determing the sort of government we have in this country.

If this system, that I have been calling "gubmint", had been refomred along the lines I described in my previous post, I think we would have a Liberal government, possibly a Liberal minority government right now.

What happened in this election was the polarizing of the electorate. We are now going to have a period of extreme partizan politics in this country like the style of politics practiced in the US. This is very bad.

The blame for this falls on the Liberal Party, who seem to have lost their political instincts. The party of the middle is now a rump, . . . with two big footprints on it.

They need new blood. They need tough blood. They need to clean up their own act, in terms of how they deal with their own backers and they need to go after corruption in the ruling party.

They also need to reach into their pants and try to locate their balls and start dealing with real issues that affect this country. The number one issue is to take back the moral position Canada occupied on the international stage. That means the Liberal Party leader can't be ambivalent about torture. Torture is wrong. We don't need torture.

Obviously we have to buy the American line to a certain degree, but behind closed doors, we have to frankly tell them that we don't agree with what they are doing, their global military posture and agression, and cannot support it publicly. Believe me, they need us to tell them that. Somebody has got to bell the American cat. That should be the job of the Liberals.

If you allow neurotics and criminals, in the United States, to impose their worldview on their allies, and on the world, we will have a nuclear war, eventually.

Bringing America back to rationality is an heroic undertaking. Canada will support the hero that takes on that task. Is Ignatieff that hero, or is he someone who doesn't want to offend his employers at Harvard?

The political "middle" is still there, but whoever wants to occupy it will have to deal with real issues and pertinent issues, not finessing the fantasies as was done in this last election by the traditional party of the middle in Canada.
edit on 3-5-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Nah i actually voted NDP cause i didn't want Stevie in.


I lied and changed my mind.

Wouldn't have mattered anyways cause apparently in my riding Conservative had 55% of the Vote hrm.......



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join