How do you decide who to vote for?

[grammafreddy]

For me it is a no-brainer…given the insane spending promises coming out of both the Layton and Iggy camps the Conservatives become an even more obvious choice for me. Layton had sadly decided to make insane announcements simply because he knows he will never be the PM and as such can (and now is) basically saying whatever the hell he feels like. Personally I wish that all candidates would run a campaign as if they really did have a chance of becoming the PM what would be a realistic platform as opposed to spending massive amounts of money that does not exist.

x2

X3 ... but I am increasingly becoming wary of the religious element within Harper's campaign and the influence religion has in what policies the C's implement. I also don't much care for the C's concept of increased policing of the Internet and giving free rein to the police to be able to monitor it or force providers to divulge information about their clients.

The older I get, the less I like all this increasing government meddling that is eroding our personal freedoms in favour of someone else's personal agenda mixed into their politics and running of our country.

I want government to run the country not run our lives.

[rideforever]

This video has a solution for:

I don't wanna vote for the lesser of 2 evils, I wanna vote for the one I like first, and if they don't win, then choose the one I dislike the least.

http://wimp.com/alternativevoting/

[GordonH]

An informed voter is a wise voter here is very good website that will help inform you http://www.apathyisboring.com/en/

If this has already posted than sorry to repost it.

[I Think]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn5RzQCx ... r_embedded

At least someone understands!

[grammafreddy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn5RzQCx ... r_embedded

At least someone understands!

Sure they do.

[NAB]

I think this is going to help make deciding who to vote for a bit easier..

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1988246/

Former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did important service for Canada. On a personal level both are warm, friendly and entertaining. However, to many Canadians, fairly or unfairly, they are the poster boys for the infamous Liberal sponsorship scandal.
While it might be good for both nostalgic purposes and Liberal morale to roll the past-due PMs out on the campaign trail, the trade-off with the broad public may not be worth the benefit in an election where Michael Ignatieff wants the ballot question to be about ethics.

The sponsorship scandal propelled Canadians to give the Liberals the pink slip some five years ago and the memory still remains relatively fresh in a society with limited historical recall.

If you want to portray yourself as a forward future-looking party, why bring out the old faces? Perhaps the Liberals want to use Chrétien and Martin to remind people about fiscal rectitude as they see it. That might work if that was the ballot question Ignatieff is pushing. It isn't, though it is the one his main opponent has on offer. Ignatieff, when not channeling Howard Dean or Tom Cruise (anyone see that bizarre "Rise-Up, Rise-Up" rally call Iggy made last night? Bizarre with a capital ‘B’), seems most consumed with democratic malaise and impropriety as he sees it. Chrétien and Martin don't help him here. Lest we forget Chrétien himself was often styled as "The Friendly Dictator" and Martin brought that unwelcome house guest John Gomery into the Liberal home. He told us all about the rot in the lot.

In campaigns you look to create a strong contrast with your competitors so as to showcase your offer as the best one for the public to buy. By bringing Chrétien and Martin out, Ignatieff at best has confused his audience. At worst he is giving the impression that he is selling the same old dented worn-out used car that Canadians thought they sent to the junk yard.

Rise-Up. Rise-Up. Rise up all those who thought the Liberal party had embraced change. Apparently that is not the case.

[Urbane]

This one issue would be enough to stop me from voting for Ignatieff:

By Brian Lilley. Last Updated: April 16, 2011 12:50am

The most puzzling question after watching two nights worth of debate is, why was Gilles Duceppe in the English debate again?

While there are English-speaking Quebecers, Duceppe isn’t interested in getting their votes. His constant complaints about Quebec not getting enough money just annoys people in the rest of the country, who wonder why Duceppe wasn’t booted with the Green’s Elizabeth May.

I’ll give the separatist leader this much, at least he wants Quebec to be its own sovereign country. Michael Ignatieff would rather have the UN run part of Canada’s foreign policy.

In the French debate on Wednesday, Ignatieff said a Liberal government would only allow Canadian troops to be deployed on missions that had the blessing of the United Nations.

“The Canadian army must never be used outside the country without the authorization of the UN,” Ignatieff told his audience in French.

Talk about surrendering sovereignty.

Under Ignatieff’s plan, Canada’s soldiers could only be used if members of the security council agreed. Sure, the permanent members include democracies such as the U.S., Britain and France, but it also includes Russia and China.

Do we want to give Moscow and Beijing more control over our military than we give our elected officials in Ottawa?

Asked whether his statement meant he wanted to give Russia and China a veto over the deployment of Canadian troops, Ignatieff laughed off the suggestion. But that’s exactly what giving the UN control over Canadian troop deployments would do.

Ignatieff cites international law as forbidding Canada from invading other countries, but other than to defend ourselves or liberate others, have Canadian troops ever invaded another country as part of a conquest?

Despite the never-ending praise Canadian politicians heap on the UN, the fact is the international chat shop has a spotty record. Just ask Liberal Sen. Romeo Dallaire.

As military leader of the UN mission in Rwanda, Dallaire was ordered not to intervene as ethnic Hutus massacred Tutsis in what can only be described as genocide. The UN chose not to intervene as hundreds of thousands died.

Since then, with Ignatieff’s help, the UN has adopted the Responsibility to Protect doctrine which promises to use military force to stop civilians from being killed. Ask the people of Darfur how well this worked as the government of Sudan sent in militias to rape and murder.

The United Nations may have started with grand intentions and noble goals, but I really have to wonder why Canadians of any political stripe continue to hold this body in such high regard.

Remember, this is an organization that gives dictators and thugs like Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe the same number of votes as Canada or the U.S.

Up until Moammar Gadhafi started bombing his own people, Libya was still holding a seat on the human rights council. Really?

Saudi Arabia and China are still represented on the body that is supposed to uphold the fundamental freedoms outlined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Neither country is fond of dissent and neither allows fundamental freedoms.

Last weekend a Toronto Star journalist was arrested for photographing the arrest of Christians gathering for an “unauthorized” worship service.

Michael Ignatieff isn’t alone in wanting to hand over more and more decision-making powers to the UN, but his pledge to give control of our military over to this gallery of rogues is truly worrisome.

[FreeRights]

Who to vote for? Maybe this will help:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on……

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended.”

:sillygrin:

Wow, that's unbelievably inaccurate.

It appears the author of that got the term "liberal" mixed up with something even more right-leaning than Conservative - fascist.

Left-leaning parties aren't about control, they are about making people equal in rights and opportunity.

[The Green Barbarian]

Left-leaning parties aren't about control, they are about making people equal in rights and opportunity.

You are correct - you called it exactly. Left-leaning parties are all about equal opportunity and rights - the rights to enjoy high taxes, high unemployment, huge deficits, union strangulation of the labour force, unnecessary regulations and red tape due solely to give their cronies' jobs, and just general misery and economic malaise. You are bang on Free Rights. Winston Churchill said it best:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... z1JtDbiymU

[Smurf]

And I would venture to say that either one left uncontrolled is as bad as the other. Neither can be trusted on their own to do the right thing.

[Homeownertoo]

Surprisingly accurate. And it puts the lie to Smurf's superficially true observation that "either one left uncontrolled is as bad as the other" -- the true part being that absolute power will corrupt, the superficial part being that the left and right are in effect mirror images of each other and that there are no differences worthy of distinction. Left to each other, you might or might not like the results either way, but the results would be very different.

[rideforever]

Who to vote for? Maybe this will help:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on……

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended.”

:sillygrin:

Wow, that's unbelievably inaccurate.

It appears the author of that got the term "liberal" mixed up with something even more right-leaning than Conservative - fascist.

Left-leaning parties aren't about control, they are about making people equal in rights and opportunity.

I dunno, that seems pretty accurate... if you're conservative, you'll tell a lie over and over and over and over untill people are wondering why you are so repetitive instead of wondering why you're lieing.

[Urbane]

How do you decide for whom to vote? Michael Ignatieff has helped provide a clear choice today. He didn't want to answer Peter Mansbridge's question about what would happen if we had another Conservative minority but when he did he said that Stephen Harper could form the government but if he lost the confidence of the House the GG would be consulted. Ignatieff would then be willing, of course, to form a government. Well, the opposition leaders have already made it abundantly clear that they do not have confidence in Stephen Harper's government and so the choice is clear. We elect a Conservative majority or we elect a Liberal minority supported by the NDP and the Bloc.

[UnknownResident]

How do you decide for whom to vote? Michael Ignatieff has helped provide a clear choice today. He didn't want to answer Peter Mansbridge's question about what would happen if we had another Conservative minority but when he did he said that Stephen Harper could form the government but if he lost the confidence of the House the GG would be consulted. Ignatieff would then be willing, of course, to form a government. Well, the opposition leaders have already made it abundantly clear that they do not have confidence in Stephen Harper's government and so the choice is clear. We elect a Conservative majority or we elect a Liberal minority supported by the NDP and the Bloc.

Urbane this post is just untrue. Besides who cares what Ignatieff says, he's a politician, haven't you heard? They never tell the truth! Besides which the Layton has clearly stated he is willing to work with the Harper, if Harper works with him. The Cons only need one party to support them.(probably)

[NAB]

How do you decide for whom to vote? Michael Ignatieff has helped provide a clear choice today. He didn't want to answer Peter Mansbridge's question about what would happen if we had another Conservative minority but when he did he said that Stephen Harper could form the government but if he lost the confidence of the House the GG would be consulted. Ignatieff would then be willing, of course, to form a government. Well, the opposition leaders have already made it abundantly clear that they do not have confidence in Stephen Harper's government and so the choice is clear. We elect a Conservative majority or we elect a Liberal minority supported by the NDP and the Bloc.

Urbane this post is just untrue. Besides who cares what Ignatieff says, he's a politician, haven't you heard? They never tell the truth! Besides which the Layton has clearly stated he is willing to work with the Harper, if Harper works with him. The Cons only need one party to support them.(probably)

Well, I care what Iggy says, because it seems clear to me that unless we get a Conservative majority, Iggy will do all possible to force yet another election in cooperation with the NDP and the Bloc. We have a new GG who has a lot of moxie, and I don't think he will be easily manipulated by the likes of Ignatieff the usurper into letting him form a coalition government without the electorate having a say in the matter.

Nab