[raydan]

Anybody ever read the short story, "2066: Election Day" by Michael Shaara?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45093487/2066 ... ael-Shaara

[andyt]

OnTheIce wrote:

andyt wrote:

And why do they have to be a lying scumbag? Because we can't handle the truth.

Politicians are what we've made of them.

They aren't scumbags, they're liars and opportunists.

They know that the electorate is dumb. They know we don't pay much attention and they also know that we forgive them for lying....we always do.

Until we demand better and not vote in governments after promising things they know they can't keep even as they say it (Chretien-GST. Harper-Senate. McGuinty-Taxes).

Why would they change when we reward them for their lies and incompetence?

You used more words, but do you really think you said it any better than I did?

[Gunnair]

andyt wrote:

Which is why bitching about pols just makes no sense. We keep voting for them, and if they do try to be honest, look what happened to Joe Clark.

Yep. Political fantasy and reality don't match up. Politicians that tell the truth - like CPC dudes that don't support abortion for example - get pounced on and whipped back to tow the party or social line.

It's a rare day we see it, but once in a while we get a glimpse of what we'd like to see in our politicians - think Pat Martin's tweets! or Chuck Cadman.

[OnTheIce]

andyt wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

andyt wrote:

And why do they have to be a lying scumbag? Because we can't handle the truth.

Politicians are what we've made of them.

They aren't scumbags, they're liars and opportunists.

They know that the electorate is dumb. They know we don't pay much attention and they also know that we forgive them for lying....we always do.

Until we demand better and not vote in governments after promising things they know they can't keep even as they say it (Chretien-GST. Harper-Senate. McGuinty-Taxes).

Why would they change when we reward them for their lies and incompetence?

You used more words, but do you really think you said it any better than I did?

Yes. You didn't set the bar too high. You rarely do.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Wrong. Don't be so partisan here that you can't see right from wrong.

Harper came to power under the guise of being a more transparent and less corrupt (or at the very least, less politically partisan) I suspect most conservatives were happy with this though suspicious (like myself). Sadly, Harper has proven he is no better than the rest. Already, I'm leaning back towards a CPC minority if only to push this guy out the door and to bring in a more inclusive PM. In my fantasy world my hopes would be that it would be a PM who looks to the needs of Canada before the power needs of his party... on top of that, I'd like a pony as well.

That's the only reason I posted this...Harper promised he'd be different than the Librals once in the PMO. Yet, as you said, he's shown over and over that he's no different than all the rest once in the PMO.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

The only reason?

That and you enjoy shitting on Harper and the CPC any chance you get.

With that said, they all promise to be better than the incumbent and then they screw us from behind.

We shouldn't be surprised anymore.

All these guys are the same. Maybe a different idea or two, but the only thing that it different between Conservatives and Liberals is the party they run for.

I don't enjoy shitting on Harper - certainly nothing like the hatred you have for Liberals anyways (let's not forget your 'jokes' about dead Liberals).

I will freely admit that I will take him to task anytime he says this and then does that instead. When he does good, he gets credit - like I said in Andy's homeless thread today. He also got kudos from me for killing income trusts. Other than that though, he hasn't done very much to my liking, so neither he nor you should be surprised that I'm not a fan of him or his policies.

And I'm not surprised at all - IMO Harper showed his true colours the day after the election in 2006 when he courted and accepted David Emerson into his Cabinet - after railing against Belinda Stronach five or six months before. Since then, he's shown over and over that if he is more than willing to put his party's interests ahead of Canada and Canadians.

[bootlegga]

raydan wrote:

Anybody ever read the short story, "2066: Election Day" by Michael Shaara?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45093487/2066 ... ael-Shaara

Just did - great story, thanks!

[Gunnair]

Harper needs to go, plain and simple. Whether that would change the current direction of the party, I don't know, but it would be a start. There are many things the CPC has done that I like, but the current air of invulnerability they have adopted as they carry out the bad practises of previous governments reveals a need... again... for a change in leadership. I had had my hopes on MacKay but not anymore.