(Untitled)
Don't vote NDP.
Even if you don't care for Paul Martin, NDP is a waste of a vote that's just going to get Stephen Harper elected.
Even if you don't care for Paul Martin, NDP is a waste of a vote that's just going to get Stephen Harper elected.
I agree with Ashley and Steve. Peter Stoffer is pretty cool. He called me and asked me for his support, what an initiative.
And what the hell is with the Harper bashing? It's not like we live in the United States where every third or fourth person is Anti-Bush. I say good on to Harper because when it comes down to it, all the party leaders are leaders for a reason. Their reasons may not suit you; however, that doesn't make it necessary to harp on the Conservatives, or any party for that matter. Why oppress the idea of voting Conservative when any of us have the freedom to not vote that way? Moreover, I say that any Party is a good Party... it could be worse.
“Until philosophers rule as kings…cities will have no rest from evils, Glaucon, nor, I think, will the human race” (Plato, Republic, 473c-d)
ps. how can anyone be in a position to attribute such a high ranking position as 'the devil' on a man who is simply human?
Reply
im going to become a philosopher and rule the world. perfectly.
Reply
PRIME MINISTER HARPER!!!!!!!!
Reply
Reply
Reply
when you said any party is a good party did you mean any party is a moraly good party... because i think there are many examples in history where it proves that this is not true. Further more if you ment that any party is a good party in the sense that they are good at being a political party...just because you have the skill dosnt mean you will be best for a country
ps screw the devil hes a jerk... the real one not steven harper
Reply
when i said that any party is a good party, it wasnt in reference to their morality or quality of their virtues (or lack thereof). my argument is that we are lucky to have a choice of parties; whereas some countries have a horrible political system. it is something to be grateful for that we have parties that won't threaten us to vote the "right" way. our parties won't be upset when they lose, and they won't use force to reclaim what they've lost. i dont expect to see paul martin at the head of any liberal regime that conspires to take the country back by imposing force or fear on canadians. we live in democracy, not a tyranny, so be thankful. any party that we have is a good party, on the grounds that they can accept the outcomes of the election.
as to your argument concerning the separation between leader and people, i would reply that whether harper or martin were prime minister, there is going to be a separation between people. the leader/people separation is inevitable. the fact that we cant achieve a majority government is a testament to the fact that everbody opposes everybody on some view. however scott, because there is that separation between leaders and citizens, we elect members of parliament who can represent us individually. and since some mp's reject the prime minister's morals, we can see that there will be an equal chance to defend against them within his own party, and within the opposition.
if we were to agree on everything then we would agree on nothing; moreover, we wouldnt need a commonwealth if we could all get along in the state of nature.
you seem to forget that, although harper may have some moral characteristics that dont sit well with a "big number of canadians", there are, at least, the minority of canadians who think otherwise. that is not to say that i agree with prime minister harper's precepts - as you recall, the initial point i stated in my comment was my preference for NDP.
as to your refutation concerning the freedom to bash or support the political leaders: well, that cycle can be continued forever. you say "freedom to bash". i say "freedom to support". it goes both ways, for a long time. in my response to the harpers (no pun intended), i say "why oppress the idea of voting Conservative when any of us have the freedom to not vote that way". you may be confused as to what i mean precisely. to clarify for you, when i say "why bother bashing harper? if you dont want him to be prime minister [too late now] then you don't have to vote for him." this is to say that there is no need for such slander, or any political leader, since we have a confidential right to vote however we feel. this privilege we should appreciate. i dont intend to imply that we dont have the freedom to bash, merely that it does no good since we all have the freedom to vote however we choose.
you say "screw the devil". i say "the devil was god's most beautiful creation". the thing is, scott, that it is a matter of opinion; moreover, it is an opinion that is pointless to make because it belongs to nobody but yourself (to some degree atleast - im sure people share opinions on some levels).
Reply
when opinions are related on a sensical level they are more than completely acceptable, and i have no charge against them. when people put a little more thought into their opinions, then not only i, but many other people will consider them as more comprehensible and sensible.
im not taking away the fact, as you stated, that "people have the right to bash harper as much as the have the right to vote for him". what i am doing is saying that when people bash harper for the sake of bashing him ("harper is the devil") it is not worth much of anything - regardless of whether it is the basher's freedom to have said opinion.
your points were interesting, thought provoking, and i appreciate your refutations inasmuch as they:
1. allowed me to clarify my arguments and
2. allowed me to hear someone else's arguments against my own
Reply
Leave a comment