Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/24/08 09:02 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 9/23/08 05:08 PM, JoS wrote:

At 9/23/08 10:22 AM, morefngdbs wrote: You want a DICTATOR running our country...then vote for Harper.

You are taking my comments literally as opposed to what I meant

You said if you want a dictator running our country vote harper. You didn't say someone who is like a dictator, or has tight control over his party, you literally called him a dictator. I do not think anyone in the world would have taken your comment any other way.

He runs the Conservatives like a Dictator. No one can say or do anything without his say so. He won't even allow his Party to talk to reporters without direct influence by him & the PMO. considering what trouble some of his people get into when they open their mouths , it makes sense to him...but i like finding out when we have a problem person in the upper house. If your a fuck up you can't hide it forever. But if the media can never approach you how can we find out?

Canada has a very partisan system. In the US you can generally vote against your party if you choose on most topics. In Canada, you are expected to tow the party line or risk getting kicked out of your party, and its the same for the LIberals, NDP and Bloc, not just the Conservatives.

He hasn't done anything lately & just leaves more 7 more seats vacant, you want to really get your Senate agenda going, wouldn't you use the vancancies to insert the people you can rightfully chose to get like minded people in there ?

Or he is leaving them open so they can be elected once he gets the reforms made. How many Senators are going to vote for the ability for them to lose their jobs?

How soon you all forget him kicking the media out & telling them what we do is our business....& we'll tell you what we want to. His GAG order on every elected Conservative ( you do realise that down here the Federal Conservative Party is called CRAP !

Again...missed "around here" ,you still hear them called the CRAP Party...Just like you still hear the H.S.T. called the Horse Shit Tax

By saying is called rather than we call you again imply this is the proper name or their actual acronym. Its your prerogative what you call them, but thats not what they are called. Had I not calle dyou on it you probably would not have clarified what you supposedly meant.

No I don't, but I don't think any of the others will either.
At least with the pot decriminalised...we would save millions of dollars wasted every year trying to get pot off the streets,when there are so many more areas that could use that money to help fight real crime.

Because that is the only way or the biggest way to save money? The money spent on enforcing pot laws is inconsequential when you look at the size of the federal budget. Emery has no experience or plan. What does the Pot Party plan to do about the economy, health care, Afghanistan, education, Arctic soverignty, native land claims? There is more than one issue on the table.

That's my the point, about Emery... the best choice out of nothing but bad choices.
If there was any way I could get a box at the bottom of every ballot in every election from now on in Canada. That box would say NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Spoil your ballot then, either do not check off any names or check them all off.

So that if in an electoral district that was the most ballots counted...none of the People on the ballot could run in the next election & that would for once give us something we really need .
A way to voice just how unhappy a voter is with what choices they're given.

Again, spoil your ballot.

At 9/24/08 09:30 AM, JoS wrote: Again, spoil your ballot.

You want to be a dick & spoil a ballot...what does that get you?
Seen the news today?
Harpers clowns used the RCMP to keep reporters away from Dona Cadman in Surrey B.C. while she was wisked out the door.
So you support who & what you like .
Using Police to keep reporters away from the other people seeking election by your Party is draconian to say the least.
If spoiling a ballot is something you enjoy,,,go nuts.
But if the only way to make a statement is to use your ballot, to support the under dog that hasn't got a chance...that to me anyway is better than writing a rant on it & having it thrown out.
Spoiling a ballot in a way is an effective way to support the candidate you dislike...How does that make any sense :\
In my world it doesn't...yours is obviously a different world.

harper just seems like one big puppet

Fuck that Bush lapdog. It's the duty of every Canadian to vote out this sack of shit and let the NDP in.

At 9/24/08 05:56 PM, adanac wrote: Fuck that Bush lapdog.

Bush isn't going to be in office for very long, you do realize that right?

It's the duty of every Canadian to vote out this sack of shit and let the NDP in.

NDP didn't ever work at the provincial level, what makes you think that it will work at a national level?

At 9/24/08 09:42 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 9/24/08 09:30 AM, JoS wrote: Again, spoil your ballot.

You want to be a dick & spoil a ballot...what does that get you?
In my world it doesn't...yours is obviously a different world.

You said you wish there was a box that said none of the above, if you do not like any of your choices. So, if you do not like any of your choices, spoil your ballot, it shows that you were unsatisfied with all of the choices you were given. While some ballots are spoiled due to voter stupidity, most are spoiled on purpose.

At 9/24/08 06:14 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:
NDP didn't ever work at the provincial level, what makes you think that it will work at a national level?

With the exception of Bob Rae, the NDP has been highly successful in the provincial governments.

At 9/24/08 07:05 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/24/08 06:14 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:
NDP didn't ever work at the provincial level, what makes you think that it will work at a national level?

With the exception of Bob Rae, the NDP has been highly successful in the provincial governments.

Bob Rae was actually quite successful in Ontario until he foolishly laid of a bunch of nurses and called an election, my parents still rant about this guy and how he fucked us by giving us all those shitty years of Harris. Now we have Howard the Duck for NDP and he's one mighty douche that ensures ontarians wont ever vote that party into power. The guy actually walked out on Union leaders for suggesting strategic voting. What an idiot!

At 9/23/08 04:48 PM, JoS wrote: stuff

Ontario and specifically people from Toronto tend to be like Americans in a way. They think they are the center of the universe, everyone is inferior to them, they live in the best place and have no need to care about others because everyone else is inconsequential.

Clearly you've never been to Vancouver the self-proclaimed capital of canadian culture. Also, i've never met anyone in Toronto that felt that way, maybe you just have bad luck, or pick really shitty friends.

At 9/24/08 07:05 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/24/08 06:14 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:
NDP didn't ever work at the provincial level, what makes you think that it will work at a national level?

With the exception of Bob Rae, the NDP has been highly successful in the provincial governments.

From my understanding, the NDP has always implemented social services without raising taxes to compensate; leading to more debt and a worse economy. Maybe this is a common misconception about the NDP, how exactly do they pay for this?

Most big industries don't even want to go into provinces with NDP because they get taxed to hell. Alberta tried to raise royalties on oil so Encana, Talisman, and Connico-Phillips(sp?) went to Saskatchewan where the taxes aren't so high.

I'm still convinced that NDP isn't what Canada needs. We don't need all of these social programs and we don't need cultural programs. I'd like to see is some kind of solid budget for Canada. Harper just cut $20 million or so dollars from some kind of art grant, they should look at everything that gets government money and decided yes or no, does the government really need to spend money on this? Give Canada a detailed budget of expenses and revenue, and set up a website giving links to where this money goes and why it needs to go there. Basically, review and overhaul Canada's budget.

At 9/26/08 10:57 AM, Prinzy2 wrote:

At 9/24/08 07:05 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/24/08 06:14 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:
NDP didn't ever work at the provincial level, what makes you think that it will work at a national level?

With the exception of Bob Rae, the NDP has been highly successful in the provincial governments.

From my understanding, the NDP has always implemented social services without raising taxes to compensate; leading to more debt and a worse economy. Maybe this is a common misconception about the NDP, how exactly do they pay for this?

The current NDP government of Manitoba has a reputation for it's balanced budgets, with excellent management of balancing spending increases with tax raises. The NDP governments have similar reputations, with the most recent one being able to turn a $14 million debt left over by the conservatives into a surplus. And of course, under Tommy Douglas they introduced medicare and public health insurance to North America. In BC, there most recent government was sucessful in enacting welfare reform. In the Yukon, the NDP governments created a $60 million dollor surplus. The only occurence I know of that fits with what you describe is the first NDP government of British Columbia in the 70s.

Most big industries don't even want to go into provinces with NDP because they get taxed to hell. Alberta tried to raise royalties on oil so Encana, Talisman, and Connico-Phillips(sp?) went to Saskatchewan where the taxes aren't so high.

Alberta? Alberta has never had an NDP government. I think you mean Manitoba. This is true, but at the same time Manitoba also has the lowest unemployment rate in Canada (or is it Alberta, not sure, regardless, it's still low) and the economy there is doing well, arguably the best in Canada, so I don't think this was such a big deal.

I'm still convinced that NDP isn't what Canada needs. We don't need all of these social programs and we don't need cultural programs. I'd like to see is some kind of solid budget for Canada. Harper just cut $20 million or so dollars from some kind of art grant, they should look at everything that gets government money and decided yes or no, does the government really need to spend money on this? Give Canada a detailed budget of expenses and revenue, and set up a website giving links to where this money goes and why it needs to go there. Basically, review and overhaul Canada's budget.

Well, I probably won't be voting NDP either, but I was just pointing out that they have been pretty successful at the provincial level. I agree with the rest of your post, but even if Harper did make that $20 million cut, but as I mentioned before the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker is gonna cost a lot of money (not sure the exact amount), so Harper wastes money too. Can't say if the NDP or Liberals would be any better though both have a history of balanced budgets. I think I'll vote Green. Normally I vote NDP or Liberal, but I don't like Jack Layton or Stephane Dion and his Green Shift. The Greens have no record of, well, anything, but I don't mind taking a risk. Yah, I'm not listening to you Conservative attack ads.

What I want to see is a Conservative government (majority but minority will do fine too) with an NDP opposition.

The Liberals complain about what Harper has done over the last 3 years, but they neglect to mention they let it happen. They could have stopped him 3 years ago if they wanted to, but they weren't interested in having an election because it didn't suit them best. They weren't looking out for Canadians interests or what they think is Canadians interests, they were looking out for their own.

At 9/26/08 11:07 PM, JoS wrote:

The Liberals complain about Harper they let it happen........ They weren't looking out for Canadians interests or what they think is Canadians interests, they were looking out for their own.

;;;;;
Absolutely .
But they all do that!
I've said it more than once here, my problem with the Political Party System, is all they are really concerned with is themselves...keeping themselves in power, knee jerk reactions , to appease or attempt to appease voters, & remain 'popular'.

THat's why a box on the ballot -"saying none of the above" , would be so perfect.
You don't have to spoil a ballot then, you can show your displeaseure for EVERY CANDIDATE !
With the great result...if the majority in that riding vote it....that no one gets elected & all of the Candidates cannot run again :)
Pick a new feild of hopefuls & they try again .

At 9/26/08 11:07 PM, JoS wrote: What I want to see is a Conservative government (majority but minority will do fine too) with an NDP opposition.

The Liberals complain about what Harper has done over the last 3 years, but they neglect to mention they let it happen. They could have stopped him 3 years ago if they wanted to, but they weren't interested in having an election because it didn't suit them best. They weren't looking out for Canadians interests or what they think is Canadians interests, they were looking out for their own.

Umm, the conservatives bailed on their fixed election scheme to try and get a majority before Obama comes to power in the usa. This is putting their interests above canadians, the majority of which who do not want an election. Also, this makes steven harper a liar, why would you vote for someone who lies to your face?

At 9/27/08 11:58 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Umm, the conservatives bailed on their fixed election scheme to try and get a majority before Obama comes to power in the usa. This is putting their interests above canadians, the majority of which who do not want an election. Also, this makes steven harper a liar, why would you vote for someone who lies to your face?

People are over-playing this Obama card. Voting in Obama is not going to increase support for the Liberals. The simple matter of the fact is you can never have fixed elections with a minority government, because the opposition can bring down the government when ever they want. There have been minority governments that didn't even last a year.

Playing the game, perhaps, but they have the balls to play their cards and implement the policies they want to do, lead the country in the direction they promised. The Liberals sat back and did nothing for years. They played a very different game. If the Liberals really believed so strongly that Harper was bad for Canada they should have killed his first budget.

At 9/26/08 11:07 PM, JoS wrote: What I want to see is a Conservative government (majority but minority will do fine too) with an NDP opposition.

My ideal Canadian government would have the NDP in government, with either the Liberals or Green in opposition. Of course, this is impossible, so realistcally I would hope for a Conservative minority with NDP opposition.

The Liberals complain about what Harper has done over the last 3 years, but they neglect to mention they let it happen. They could have stopped him 3 years ago if they wanted to, but they weren't interested in having an election because it didn't suit them best. They weren't looking out for Canadians interests or what they think is Canadians interests, they were looking out for their own.

Well, it's not like the Conservatives have done much better. They broke there own fixed election law because it was better for their party. That's politics for ya, everyone is looking out for their party. But I'm probably going to vote strategically for the Liberals, cause they have the best chance of beating the Conservatives in my riding, and thus helping to prevent a Conservative majority. But then again, I like the Greens. I might just end up not deciding what to do till election day and then just vote NDP by default...

At 9/27/08 12:33 PM, Saruman200 wrote: My ideal Canadian government would have the NDP in government, with either the Liberals or Green in opposition. Of course, this is impossible, so realistcally I would hope for a Conservative minority with NDP opposition.

;;;;;;;;
While I wouldn't go as far as to say 'My Ideal' new Government...but with what we have available for choices, a Conservative Minority with NDP opposition idea of yours makes the most sense. It is about the best we Canadians will be able to get.

Whatever happens, if either the Conservatives or Liberals get a Majority !
We're in for a rough time.
I also don't believe a NDP Majority would be good for Canada at this time either.

At 9/27/08 12:45 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Whatever happens, if either the Conservatives or Liberals get a Majority !
We're in for a rough time.

Why are we in for a rough time if the liberals get a majority? They've led this country for the majority of history, and have always done a good job. The conservatives on the other hand...

At 9/23/08 03:11 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 9/23/08 02:51 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: This is wrong. Elections canada only gives money to parties that run in EVERY riding.

;;;;;
Well if you are right, then the Green Party will get no money.
They are refusing to run a candidate in Dion's riding.
They are refusing to run a candidate in Bill Casey's Riding.
The Liberals will get no money because.
The Liberals are not running a candidate in The riding that Peter MacKay now holds where May for the Green Party is running.
There is no way these two Parties would give up on that kind of cash.

Go to Elections Canada & find out what's right before you speak of what you obviously know very little about.
ANYONE who gets at least 10% of the votes cast in their riding are entitled to 15 % of their expenses returned.
If they file their paper work after the election in a timely manner, they are entitled up to 60 % of their expenses reimbursed.
Also every Candidate has to put up $1000.00 to be able to run in the election. That can be refunded 100% of this , if they have filed all unused official tax receipts & Candidates Electoral Campaign Return and other official documents by the alloted time.

Blanket comments are meaningless unless you can back them up.
I found the Elections Canada site with out any problem.
So I'm not providing a link to back my claims...I just took them right off the site & posted them here.

Please go and read the ACT, because you're wrong.

On receipt from a registered party of the documents referred to in subsection 429(1), the Chief Electoral Officer shall provide the Receiver General with a certificate that sets out the amount that is 50% of the registered party's election expenses that were paid by its registered agents as set out in the return for its general election expenses, if

(a) the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that the registered party and its chief agent have complied with the requirements of sections 429 to 434;

(b) the auditor's report does not include a statement referred to in subsection 430(2); and

(c) candidates endorsed by the registered party received at least

(i) 2% of the number of valid votes cast at the election, or

(ii) 5% of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate.

Here is a snippet of the act, so stop being a bold faced liar, you brought this up in another thread which is totally rude as well. While i was initially wrong in my statement, you were quite offensive to imply me "stupid" and insult my intelligence. Why? Because you're a conservative and i'm not? That's offensive. In the end you were wrong and you are a liar, go lick your wounds.

At 9/22/08 08:48 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:

At 9/22/08 07:23 PM, jonnyrules935 wrote: I'm from Québec, so my vote goes to the Bloc,

If it makes you feel better, the Bloc would be my second choice for a government.

still, if we could prevent the conservatives from being majorely elected, it would be a goos thing.

No it wouldn't. All the other parties told the press that they would pretty much work together to shoot down anything that the Conservatives put up.

I mean why vote for a guy who wants to censor art and give money to the oil companies ?

You call a pile of scrap metal art? He cut funding because it wasn't art, it was fucking junk.

the guy says that Québec is a nation, but doesn't do shit for its language and culture.

If you guys would shut up already about wanting to be semi-independent already, he wouldn't have told you what you wanted to hear. You're a province, not a nation.

if you are from ontario, please do not vote Conservative, they don't give a hoot about the western economy, all they want is to boost the oil industry so that they can go on stealing us.

They want to boost the oil industry so they can collect more tax on it. Did you read about what happened when the Alberta government tried to increase royalties? Encana threatened to pull $1 billion out of Alberta's oil sands, and Conico-phillips(sp?) and Talisman threatened to pull out $500 million. The government isn't really stealing from you, if you want universal healthcare, schooling, and whatnot, quit bitching about the government taking money from you.

Vive le Québec Libre !

Someone care to translate for me?
I'm guessing long live Quebec something.

You say that the other parties would shoot down all the changes the that harper as made... thats awsome!! Do you know all the shit he has passed that the general public doesnt know about? Wahoo Harper cut taxes, did any one else notice that infalition shot through the roof like a month later?? Do you think they are losing any money? coinsedance?? I THINK NOT!!!

At 10/3/08 12:51 PM, wpattie wrote: You say that the other parties would shoot down all the changes the that harper as made... thats awsome!! Do you know all the shit he has passed that the general public doesnt know about? Wahoo Harper cut taxes, did any one else notice that infalition shot through the roof like a month later?? Do you think they are losing any money? coinsedance?? I THINK NOT!!!

No, I don't know all the laws that Harper has passed that the general public doesn't know about. I noticed everything got inflated because of gas prices, but other than, no.

Do I think they are losing any money? Coincidence? You think not?
What exactly are you saying?

At 10/1/08 05:06 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

At 9/23/08 03:11 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 9/23/08 02:51 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: This is wrong. Elections canada only gives money to parties that run in EVERY riding.

;;;;;
The Liberals are not running a candidate in The riding that Peter MacKay now holds where May for the Green Party is running.
There is no way these two Parties would give up on that kind of cash.

Go to Elections Canada & find out what's right before you speak of what you obviously know very little about.
ANYONE who gets at least 10% of the votes cast in their riding are entitled to 15 % of their expenses returned.
If they file their paper work after the election in a timely manner, they are entitled up to 60 % of their expenses reimbursed.
Also every Candidate has to put up $1000.00 to be able to run in the election. That can be refunded 100% of this , if they have filed all unused official tax receipts & Candidates Electoral Campaign Return and other official documents by the alloted time.

Blanket comments are meaningless unless you can back them up.
I found the Elections Canada site with out any problem.
So I'm not providing a link to back my claims...I just took them right off the site & posted them here.

Please go and read the ACT, because you're wrong.

I'm not wrong...Your stupid...or at least not smart enough to be able to figure out there is a distinct difference between a CANDIDATE & a POLITICAL PARTY ! ! ! ! !

On receipt from a registered party of the documents referred to in subsection 429(1), the Chief Electoral Officer shall provide the Receiver General with a certificate that sets out the amount that is 50% of the registered party's election expenses that were paid by its registered agents as set out in the return for its general election expenses, if

(a) the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that the registered party and its chief agent have complied with the requirements of sections 429 to 434;

(b) the auditor's report does not include a statement referred to in subsection 430(2); and

(c) candidates endorsed by the registered party received at least

(i) 2% of the number of valid votes cast at the election, or

(ii) 5% of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate.

Here is a snippet of the act, so stop being a bold faced liar, you brought this up in another thread which is totally rude as well. While i was initially wrong in my statement, you were quite offensive to imply me "stupid" and insult my intelligence. Why? Because you're a conservative and i'm not? That's offensive. In the end you were wrong and you are a liar, go lick your wounds.

;;;;;
Your view about 50 % is for POLITICAL PARTIES !!!!
Not Candidates.
You have to PAY ATTENTION, to what you read.
Political CANDIDATES are entiutled to 60 % of their expenses to be repaid, with the proper documentation.....
Fuck, I'll just spell it all out for you, that way anyone who can read & research can find out whether this is B.S. or not.
ITEM----Election expense limits,
PARTY -Based on the number of electors in all ridings in which the Party endorses candidates.
CANDIDATE-Based on the number of electors in the riding and adjusted for geographically large ridings & ridings with less than average populations.

ITEM- Election expense reimbursement
PARTY- 50% of paid election expenses
CANDIDATE- 60% of paid election expenses & paid candidate personal expenses

ITEM- Expenses incurred by
PARTY- Chief Agent or registered agent
CANDIDATE- Candidate ,Chief Agent or person authorized in writing by the official agent

ITEM-Supporting documentation provided to Elections Canada (as required by the Act)
PARTY- None
CANDIDATE- All vouchers, invoices , returned checks, deposit slips ,bank statements & any additional documentation requested.

I heard something about dions green shift plan in Mclean's Magazine (dont kno y i was reeding it). If your toast is burnt, itll cost about a dollar. anyway i dont know hoo im going for...