Harper is a strong leader
romanP @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:54 pm
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
So let's all move to Alberta then, eh!
Since that's all that's left now.
Since that's all that's left now.
And it certainly won't drive wages down and inflation up when everyone is competing for the same job!
romanP @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:57 pm
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
Pseudonym Pseudonym:
Pshaw. Our minimum wage is lower!
Federally, it's $6.55 until 2009, when it'll bump up to $7.25.
Although I think the US dollar has picked up a little value recently, if I'm not mistaken.
Federally, it's $6.55 until 2009, when it'll bump up to $7.25.
Although I think the US dollar has picked up a little value recently, if I'm not mistaken.
My American friends complain about their wages all the time. My friend makes pretty much shit... $3-something plus tips. That's just slavery, dammit.
Hold on a minute there.. waiting tables falls outside of minimum wage laws because of tips, so that doesn't really count as a good benchmark for what minimum wage is anywhere.
romanP @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:02 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
It's a great ad. It points out that Harper isn't a leader at all. He's had two years and, if he'd wanted to address any of those things, would have found support on the opposition benches. He has refused to seek that support though, instead preferring to bully, lie, and evade. That ain't leadership.
If that's the criteria for a leader then Paul Martin wasn't a leader, and Jean Chretien wasn't a leader.
Excuses, excuses. I guess it has to be repeated for hundred thousandth time that Conservatives campaigned on being different from and better than the Liberals, and have been anything but and, if not, worse.
RUEZ @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:10 pm
romanP romanP:
RUEZ RUEZ:
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
It's a great ad. It points out that Harper isn't a leader at all. He's had two years and, if he'd wanted to address any of those things, would have found support on the opposition benches. He has refused to seek that support though, instead preferring to bully, lie, and evade. That ain't leadership.
If that's the criteria for a leader then Paul Martin wasn't a leader, and Jean Chretien wasn't a leader.
Excuses, excuses. I guess it has to be repeated for hundred thousandth time that Conservatives campaigned on being different from and better than the Liberals, and have been anything but and, if not, worse.
You say, I disagree.
romanP @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:44 pm
CommanderSock CommanderSock:
That's because as a voter, I'm supposed to be lazy, and if the leader can't explain to me, Joe1, then he fails, because for every Joe1, there is a Joe 2, 3, 4, 5 etc etc, so on and so forth.
Wrong. As a voter, you should make the effort to inform yourself about the issues or not vote at all. If you do not understand the issues, you cannot understand anyone's platform, no matter how simple anyone makes it for you.
$1:
Do you understand that most voters are busy, don't bother spending hours reading up on a plan.
You don't need to spend hours upon hours every day reading up on anything, and certainly not all at once. Some of that time that most people spend watching Seinfeld and drinking beer could be spent reading up on current events and drinking beer. I hardly spend that much time reading or listening to news myself, and I consider myself fairly well informed on the issues. It's not as difficult as people want to think it is.
$1:
If Mr Dion cannot explain his plan in the TV media, or summarize it nicely, people will be turned off. I know plenty of people who now will vote Con because they say "I don't want more taxes". I know it's not more taxes. I know it is really just a "shift" of taxes from one area to another, but most voters don't see it that way.
Relying on TV news is the worst way to learn about political issues. You cannot be informed by ten second soundbites. TV news is, at best, a supplementary to literary and radio news.
romanP @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:22 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
romanP romanP:
Excuses, excuses. I guess it has to be repeated for hundred thousandth time that Conservatives campaigned on being different from and better than the Liberals, and have been anything but and, if not, worse.
You say, I disagree.
You only say you disagree because you don't actually have any real defense for your poor-ass defense of the indefensible.
RUEZ @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:25 pm
romanP romanP:
RUEZ RUEZ:
romanP romanP:
Excuses, excuses. I guess it has to be repeated for hundred thousandth time that Conservatives campaigned on being different from and better than the Liberals, and have been anything but and, if not, worse.
You say, I disagree.
You only say you disagree because you don't actually have any real defense for your poor-ass defense of the indefensible.
I don't have to defend them, you haven't proven anything. You've just said they are worse. I say no. End of discussion unless you have some specifics you want to talk about.
Reverend Blair @ Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:28 am
Ruez, there are countless examples on this very site of the Conservatives doing the exact same thing as the Liberals. Try the Conservative scandals and misdeeds thread for examples.