Comments | emotional_dirth: short and sweet

emotional_dirth

short and sweet

Dec 12, 2006 20:08

How fucking sweet it is

Stephen Harper: abortion - can't do a thing about it. gay marriage? well, the debate is closed. for good.

For all the things I despise about him, he at least knows when not to push an issue into the ground and flog it for votes.

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

Guess-Work (how would I know anything from down here anyway?) thirteenspikes December 12 2006, 22:26:24 UTC

The motion was only introduced as a compromise measure between social conservatives and others anyway. If Harper had ever thought it would go through he would have made sure it was a private member´s bill.

Way too controversial; Canada has a fucking docile population in regards to most things, but people pick such random things to go crazy over. *sigh*

It´s got to be the lobby groups´ fault. Marketing of social issues is insane in that country.

Re: Guess-Work (how would I know anything from down here anyway?) emotional_dirth December 12 2006, 23:30:27 UTC

I do think Harper thought it could have gone through. It was a campaign promise, and if he did a private member's bill it wouldn't look as good as "a conservative motion." If he didn't think it would go through, he would have done it when he had a majority government. This is such an important issue for him: some people will vote for him JUST BECAUSE of the issue. It's a carrot on a stick for him and a particular segment of voters, and a very good one at that. This will come back and kick his ass; the next leadership conference will not be good to him if the conservatives lose the election ( ... )

Pretty Standard Fiscal Conservative Rhetoric thirteenspikes December 15 2006, 21:34:58 UTC

"This is such an important issue for him: some people will vote for him JUST BECAUSE of the issue ( ... )

Re: Pretty Standard Fiscal Conservative Rhetoric emotional_dirth December 15 2006, 21:58:50 UTC

The problem of our gov't getting it easy, is in my opinion, television and media. We also, let's face it, don't have much to protest about. I mean, most people don't need to protest about much because they have it good; they gots their teevees, tha interweb, all that porn on said interweb... In comparison, in places like europe and southern america - they actually have stuff to protest about! So, while I will agree with you that we may be docile, I hope and pray we wouldn't be complacent ( ... )

Re: Pretty Standard Fiscal Conservative Rhetoric thirteenspikes December 17 2006, 20:38:54 UTC

In regards to poor people being poorly informed about economics, it`s true. They probably don`t know the difference between a stock and a bond, not to mention which is going to give you more money by next year. But if a person is so poorly informed that they don`t happen to notice that they are already in the lowest tax bracket, they deserve anything coming to them. Er. Harsh as that sounds. It`s on your paycheque every week how much you pay. And if you don`t get a paycheque then you are not paying income taxes. Most of the poorer people I`ve met have been socialists economically. I can`t think of a single exception at the moment ( ... )

Re: Pretty Standard Fiscal Conservative Rhetoric emotional_dirth December 18 2006, 02:40:48 UTC

Sorry Bev, but saying fiscal conservativism = not spending on what you don't have is, at best, naive. Now, the problem is that 'fiscal conservativism' has been corrupted by the economic libertarians, and supplanted with libertarianism as an economic ideology ( ... )

Holy Tangents, Batman! thirteenspikes December 18 2006, 21:57:45 UTC

Oversimplified, but not naive. Fiscal conservatism is an ideology that applies to people as easily as governments. One person plays it relatively safe in his investments and pays off his credit cards in full every month. Another guy plays the penny stocks and hopes to hit it rich enough to pay off his debts overnight. (talk about ideology colouring metaphors...!) But no matter how much the phrase is misused and marketed in campaigns, it doesn´t change the original meaning. I´m told that historically democrats have been more fiscally conservative than republicans. That´s fine, great and not at all unexpected ( ... )

II thirteenspikes December 18 2006, 21:58:57 UTC

Welfare for the rich? What, like EI for rich guys who got fired? Or government pensions for elderly wealthy? Or, wait wait, free health care for people who can otherwise afford it independantly ( ... )

Back to all threads