[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

What does the story say?
Nothing. It's not news. It's advertisement.
It's a rallying call to the faithfull and a request for thm to be patient.
It also passes judgement on other pundit and tells the faithfull who to listen to and who not to.

It does tell me that the media love affair with Iggy and their push to crown him PM has failed.

Ahhh, the wonderful 'media is left-wing biased' argument...right up there with faked moon landings and Roswell. Be careful, MLB is spying on you 24/7...

[Akhenaten]

$1:

your hypocrisy by now should be self-evident the way you skipped ridens nonsense which was at least identical to mine.

You're right: your stuff is nonsense. "Quit picking on me...pick on riden my arch-special-olympics-debate rival". Amazing what constitutes 'proof' in your world.

No problem, I'll help you out there: the media is not 'left-wing' bias. It's commercially bias. It will manufacture stories and design them to gain the most attention in order to sell the most advertizing. There is no other motive. As a rule failure is more attention-grabbing than success, for example. On the next election they will of course report on the winner, but write forever on the loser (what did they do wrong, how can they do right, etc).
There is little to be gained in following a liberal bias agenda unless you know your majority readership has a liberal bias. Subsequently you get right-wing 'biases' too in that vien but they are all fake biases.

[FieryVulpine]

Harper and Ignatieff. Different parties, same idiot in a suit. That's all I have to say about either.

[ridenrain]

bootlegga bootlegga:

ridenrain ridenrain:

What does the story say?
Nothing. It's not news. It's advertisement.
It's a rallying call to the faithfull and a request for thm to be patient.
It also passes judgement on other pundit and tells the faithfull who to listen to and who not to.

It does tell me that the media love affair with Iggy and their push to crown him PM has failed.

Ahhh, the wonderful 'media is left-wing biased' argument...right up there with faked moon landings and Roswell. Be careful, MLB is spying on you 24/7...

That would have been George Bush, wouldn't it? The evil president who was in charge of the 9-11 false flag operation?

Rather than just chip in your support for your brand-mate, why don't you tell us what that story meant to you?

$1:

special-olympics-debate rival

??
No respect.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

This:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

the real question, based on actual events and stats, should be not 'will the conservatives win', but rather 'how many seats will the Liberals lose this time?'

Is the most substantial contribution to the thread. You can tell because you won't reply to it.

Way to pat yourself on the back there.. If you want to ask a real question..

Will there be a coalition after the next election in the event the Conservatives somehow manage to trick people into electing them again?

Oh how you would whine and cry about how unfairly power was stolen. Still you would have to face facts that more people voted against redneckism than for it. And also that Steve's favourite country in the world Israel who can never ever do anything wrong, just did exactly that to put the rednecks in power.

[Akhenaten]

ridenrain ridenrain:

$1:

special-olympics-debate rival

??
No respect.

No offense. I hate arguing with you guys because I don't even dislike either of you. Nothing's personal.

[ridenrain]

I'd rather not argue like that either but when a monkey throws shit at you, your options are limited.

[Akhenaten]

Curtman Curtman:

Will there be a coalition after the next election in the event the Conservatives somehow manage to trick people into electing them again?

Why would I bother answering such a loaded question? It's obvious you are stuped in bias. Should the Liberals win then Canadians were smart. Should the conservatives win then Canadians are stupider than you. Can't argue with that mentality. Can only ignore it.

Curtman Curtman:

Still you would have to face facts that more people voted against redneckism than for it.

Oh I love this one. No. You're wrong and you probably know it. More people voted for the Conservatives than any other party. That's the way elections work. One could just as easily argue that WAY more people voted against the Liberals than voted against the Conservatives. It's the exact same logic -- if you indeed employ such a thing -- using the exact same numbers.

Go ahead. Keep dismissing the Canadian voter as rednecks - most of the ones who voted the Cons in were from Ontario. Truth is Canada didn't move towards th Conservative party - Canada didn't get more conservative, it moved away from the Liberal party. Deal with that and you may win another election. Until then keep dismissing them and keep on hemorrhaging seats.

What happened? Did Derby send out an SOS to every Liberal partisan hack on the board? Try and pigeon hole me and you'll make a fool of yourself.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Why would I bother answering such a loaded question. It's obvious you are stuped in bias. Should the Liberals win then Canadians were smart. Should the conservatives win then Canadians are stupeder than you. Can't argue with that mentality. Can only ignore it.

My favourite part was where you spelled stupid wrong. Twice. I'm pretty sure most of us are biased here, or we wouldn't be here. I am heavily biased against Stephen Harper. The Conservative partly less so.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Oh I love this one. No. You're wrong and you probably know it. More people voted for the Conservatives than any other party. That's the way elections work. One could just as easily argue that WAY more people voted against the Liberals than voted against the Conservatives. It's the exact same logic -- if you indeed employ such a thing -- using the exact same numbers.

No I'm not wrong. If a candidate doesn't have 50%+1 then more people didn't want him to be Prime Minister than wanted him. It's a flaw in our system, but it's there. In that case he should recognize that he doesn't have a very firm grip on power, and that it might be taken from him at any time.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

What happened? Did Derby send out an SOS to every Liberal partisan hack on the board? Try and pigeon hole me and you'll make a fool of yourself.

Partisan hack.. Can you imagine someone saying something so obviously biased here. Right for the personal attack. Is that one going in the next attack ad?

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Rather than just chip in your support for your brand-mate, why don't you tell us what that story meant to you?

The story simply illuminates what hacks like you have been doing for months, trying to crucify Iggy for this or that, nothing more.

It's funny, I remember how much you and all the other Conservatives bitched and moaned about Harper getting bashed by the media while he was Opposition leader, yet within seconds of him winning the election in 2006, you all starting hunting for dirt on the new Opposition leader.

How many threads did you start about Dion? Dozens? Hundreds? Far too many to count that's for sure. If I had the time to dig through the archives, I'm sure I'd find dozens on Iggy from you too.

Frankly, I was SHOCKED that this news item wasn't posted by you. Imagine my surprise when I found out Trev posted it...

[Akhenaten]

Curtman Curtman:

My favourite part was where you spelled stupid wrong. Twice. I'm pretty sure most of us are biased here, or we wouldn't be here. I am heavily biased against Stephen Harper. The Conservative partly less so.

Not as stupid as playing dumb games with numbers when you know you're wrong.

Curtman Curtman:

No I'm not wrong.

Yes you are. You tally all the votes that weren't conservative and then conclude that more people voted "against them". Lets try that with the Liberals shall we? How many people didn't vote for them? More than those who didn't vote for the Conservatives. Therefore by your logic more people voted "againsst" the liberals than against the conservatives. This is simple. Your contention is just a stupid talking point and it's incorrect.

$1:

Right for the personal attack.

Hey a**hole: you came out of nowhere to attack me with your retard math and calling me a redneck.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

It's a flaw in our system, but it's there.

Funny how this was never a flaw in the system until the Conservatives won.

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Curtman Curtman:

No I'm not wrong.

Yes you are. You tally all the votes that weren't conservative and then conclude that more people voted "against them". Lets try that with the Liberals shall we? How many people didn't vote for them? More than those who didn't vote for the Conservatives. Therefore by your logic more people voted "againsst" the liberals than against the conservatives. This is simple. Your contention is just a stupid talking point and it's incorrect.

lol. Can't believe I'm having to explain this. A junior high school student can see through this game. You just let me know when you find a democratic system that works ont he basis of which party the most people voted against.



Unbelievable.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Yes you are. You tally all the votes that weren't conservative and then conclude that more people voted "against them". Lets try that with the Liberals shall we? How many people didn't vote for them? More than those who didn't vote for the Conservatives. Therefore by your logic more people voted "againsst" the liberals than against the conservatives. This is simple. It's a stupid talking point and it's incorrect.

It's simple if you ignore the actual mathematics of the situation. Your equation looks like this:

PC = Liberal

There is an imbalence, therefore PC wins clearly. The real equation is this:

Liberal + NDP = PC
(Bloc off in la-la-land supporting Lib + NDP)

Now where is the imbalence favouring? Conservatives form the opposition rightly so.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Hey a**hole: you came out of nowhere to attack me with your retard math and calling me a redneck.

I didn't call you anything, that must be your guilty conscience. I'm actually enjoying this conversation, but you seem to get upset by it.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Funny how this was never a flaw in the system until the Conservatives won.

Its not a flaw that works for the Conservatives. Nobody wants to get in bed with them.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

It's simple if you ignore the actual mathematics of the situation. Your equation looks like this:

PC = Liberal

There is an imbalence, therefore PC wins clearly. The real equation is this:

Liberal + NDP = PC
(Bloc off in la-la-land supporting Lib + NDP)

Now where is the imbalence favouring? Conservatives form the opposition rightly so.

Wrong. It starts with this logical fallacy of assuming anyone who didn't vote conservative voted against them. You're the only one ignoring the mathematics of the situation...lol! Thats a spin.

I'm not explaining the math to you again.

The conservatives gained like 30+ seats and the Liberals lost 20+ last election. Only a spinmiester of the highest grade falls for this "more people voted against them than for them".

As I said: using the exact same logic WAY more people 'voted against' the Liberals than the conservatives. That's the EXACT same logic and you can't answer it.

$1:

I didn't call you anything

You called anyone voting conservative a redneck. Childish and sticking your head in the sand.