Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Canadian woman 'devastated' by guilty verdict from Mexican judge | Main | "Just because Anders says it doesn't make it wrong" »

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Let's face it, voters are clever

I have a column in the Sun Media chain today examining the election laws which are in the news so much thanks to the Stephen Harper -- Elections Canada vendetta.

My point is that these laws which essentially stifle free speech are bad for democracy and should be scrapped.

Crossposted at Making Sense with Nicholls

Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 23, 2008 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Let's face it, voters are clever:


"My point is that these laws which essentially stifle free speech are bad for democracy and should be scrapped."

How are these laws stifeling free speech? If anything they allow for more free speech as everybody has the same amount of money to spend.

Think about this as a moderated discussion where every participant has 2 minutes to voice their opinion on a topic. What you are suggesting is that before the discussion everybody can "buy" additional time to voice their opinion. Would that lead to a fair debate?

Elections aren't about Free Speech, they are about advertising and marketing, to take away with the caps will favour the big, entrenched parties and prevent smaller ones from getting their voices out.

Sometimes limits are actually promoting free speech, not preventing it.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-23 8:43:53 AM

Canadian voters are clever?

Can you provide links to anything in the last three decades that even remotely proves that is true?

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-04-23 8:52:11 AM

So if Warren Buffet has a nephew in Canada, and together they decide it's time there was a Green party Prime Minister, and they distributed a paltry ten billion dollars among their social network who in turn each made private contributions of $32,467,532 to each Green candidate's campaign, giving them access to Ad Agencies like Chiat Day, and the clout to run ads every day of the week, that's ok?

Now swap out Warren Buffet with the Saud family.

I know voters are clever, but I still think there's tremendous value in tightly restricted campaigns. Restrictions that allow maximum access by voters to candidates while limiting candidate access to voters.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-23 9:01:19 AM

EVERY CROOK ATTACKS THE LAW UNDER WHICH THEY ARE CONVICTED! So it is with the CONservatives--it merely remains for them to be convicted in the courts, but in the court of public opinion, their guilt has already been determined!

These hypocrites promised honest, transparent government that would do away with wasteful spending! Now we get junk mail from these unethical clowns, paid for out of our own tax money! Junk mail paid for by taxpayers! Partisan junk mail! If that is not wasteful spending, what is?

The Harper government stinks to high heaven of corruption and sleaze!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 9:05:20 AM

Let's say there were German companies, let's say Thyssen, who wanted favours from the Canadian government and the prime minister would not play ball, so they send over Karl Heinz Schreiber with a bag of cash and Schreiber pays to fly delegates to Winnipeg to dump Joe and install Schreibers bought and paid for candidate, who then is bankrolled to become prime minister, who then takes brown paper bags of cash from Schreiber in exchange for channelling Canadian taxpayer monies to Schreiber enterprises, then that is just fine. That is the CONservative Party way! LOL!

Harper is merely continuing a Mulroney tradition! The present goverment of CONs are trying to defraud Canadian taxpayers at every turn!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 9:10:28 AM


In the column you begin the attack by accusing those who favour spending linits of thinking voters are stupid. You write, "It's feared that unless we have these restrictions in place, some unscrupulous rich person might bamboozle gullible voters with a glitzy advertising campaign and end up 'buying' an election victory." Nice pandering, but there are two problems.

(1) You would not care about spending caps unless YOU believed that more spending would lead to more votes. After all, if allowing more spending would not effect the results, why would it be such an important issue? The principle alone? No. There are lots of examples of where the principle of free speech is on the line where you (and other conservatives) say nothing (and certainly don't write multiple columns about them). YOU care about spending laws precisely because YOU believe that spending=votes.

(2) You can play the "Hey! They're calling you dumb!" card if you like, but if readers react to your column as you wish, then you will have proved they are dumb. Your simplistic manipulations are DESIGNED for a stupid audience. That's why it's in Sun newspapers, right? But seriously, the CONTENT of most of the ads that are made in election campaigns that can and do sway voters are nonsense aimed at morons. Most swing voters ARE dumb. You know it, I know it, hell, even Adam Yoshida knows it ( http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/04/will-pennsylvan.html ). So your argument is disengenuous from the outset.

"Canadian voters are actually pretty bright. They make their decision based on the facts and issues, not on how much money one side spends."

If you believed that, you would have no problem with the law as is. The spending cap is high enough that it ensures that everyone can get their message out. Information is widely available during elections for those bright, fact-based decision makers to use. I have never had any trouble finding out all I need to know about the parties and local candidates when making my decision. So more spending is only needed to get to the willfully disengaged or those who can be manipulated. Again, the pandering might work, but it only shows you don't believe your own bullshit.

You close with "All we need to do is trust in the intelligence of the Canadian voter." I know you don't believe that. Not, unless trusting in their intelligence includes things like the Liberal ads saying the Conservatives want tanks to roll in the streets of Toronto and Conservatives saying Liberals support child pornography or NDPers saying Paul Martin kills homeless people. All parties use the stupidity of the swing voters any way they can, even by using false compliments by treating them as brilliant and thoughtful decision makers when the argument suits them.

You should read Terrence Watson's comment here: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/04/in-todays-new-y.html (the sixth one down, posted at 14-Apr-08 9:35:19 PM). He's talking about Obama, but could just as easily be talking about you and this column of yours.

Now, about the issue of spending limits, I think we can agree that imposing them does have the effect of limiting the volume of speech. It does not actually stifle the ability to say anything in particular, just the ability to go on endlessly repeating it. So it is a limitation on free speech. But whether such a limit is bad for democracy is an entirely different issue. But even if it is good for democracy whether or not that should matter is yet another different issue. It might be interesting to discuss these. More interesting than reading columns full of false praise, anyway.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-23 9:16:23 AM


Damn you, anyway.

After reading your account online, I decided to get a hard copy of the Edmonton Sun.

As a result of being exposed to the adverstising, I'm not being forced by the rich car dealers to buy their products.

Instead of spending a quiet day fending off mental midgets like ROGER, I'm going to have to go to the bank to borrow about a million dollars.

Thanks to the power of advertising, I'm being forced to buy a Honda, a Pontiac, a Toyota, a Chryler minivan, a Suzuki, a Ford, a Hyundai, a Kia, an Acura, a Chevy, a Nissan Frontier ....

And that's just in the first 10 pages.

Damn the advertisers. The very presence of the ad exploits my weaknesses and I have no choice.

Well, acutally, I have hundreds of choices, but you know what I mean.

Those advertisers have stolen, stolen I tell ya, my money. Because once I saw the ad, I just couldn't resist. They're expoliting my weakness. Really, they are.

Once the ad is in front of me, I am so weak-minded that the very sight of it forces me to buy, buy, buy.

I have no free will. I have no intellectual capacity. I succumb to these messages for one reason only. It's because I'm stupid.

Must go. So man cars. So little time.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 9:34:48 AM


Why did Harper boast of restricting campaign spending by corporations and unions as a great achievement of his accountability act if it meant nothing? These scoundrels want to have their cake and eat it too! LOL!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 9:38:27 AM

Lawrence Lessig won the April 2008 special congressional election for CA-12 seat. The problem is, he didn't run. Lessig had a groundswell of support behind what's called the "Draft Lessig" movement. He didn't spend a nickel, he spoke freely elsewhere prior to the election and rightly won over a base who tried to force him to be their congressman. He politely declined.

The thing is, he used real free speech. FREE free speech to make his point outside of the professional political arena, over at lessig.org, and through his books and lectures. No election spending restrictions silenced him. No budget restricted him. He spoke. So can any would-be leader in Canada.

Frankly I don't want to be governed by someone who can't muster the scraps of imagination it takes to spread a message without a plane, a bus, a million billboards, airtime and a featured interview on the Mercer Report.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-23 9:40:15 AM

Just when we look for proof that voters are stupid, up pops Set You Free--he was named after a laxative.

If advertising does not show a return, then companies are wasting money. If companies waste billions on advertising, then why has the market not corrected the wasteful behaviour? The market is always right. I realize most idiots posting here are completely uneducated and so are gullible to believe the drivel printed in toilet paper rags that pass for newspapers. If advertising did not matter, why did Big Tobacco fight the ad bans? Why are the pharma industry lobbyists fighting to allow more and more drug ads? Because it does not work? SYF believes ads are all aimed at her and that ads work instantaneously. SYF has not studied marketing, let alone worked in marketing. Harper did not waste over $1 million in illegal ads--no, he used it to steal the election! Effective Ads=results. Ask any company.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 9:45:13 AM

Lessig didn't spend a nickel: what follows is a description of his website, books, speeches...

Websites come free of charge, as do computers, telephones, travel and transportation, the venues to give speeches, the printing costs and distribution and mailing costs of books... all free! Sure. Fairytales from the shallow "thinkers" who believe themselves to possess profound truths! LOL! In the land of the blind, those with a flashlight are still blind! LOL

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 9:50:42 AM


When are the charges going to be laid?

LOL! First the panicked mice claimed it was a "visit" from the RCMP. Two days later they were breathlessly ranting about the RCMP "storming" CPC headquarters! LOL! Visit or raid? Next they will claim the RCMP were searching for lingerie! LOL! clowns!

The RCM Police were of course looking for criminal evidence for a criminal investigation. Nothing to do with civil law suits which does not interest the police. Police=criminal matters, CONservative criminal wrongdoing!

Harper promised an end to corruption. His supporters claimed he was "principled"! LOL! A principled briber of MPs, a stealer of elections!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 9:55:53 AM

CANADIANS ARE NOT STUPID. WE ALL KNOW HARPER STOLE THE LAST ELECTION, while he sanctimoniously preached about honesty and integrity and open, transparent, accountable government!

Mulroney was Harper's advisor. Schreiber was close to many CONservatives--Schreiber helped Pete MacKay get a job at Thyssen! Yes, the same Thyssen that paid all those bribes! LOL!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 9:59:38 AM



You are so correct in that assertion.

When the intelligent people of Canada was how much of their money was being stolen in, drum roll please, ADSCAM, they were smart enough to understan how Liberals used their money to line their pockets.

That's why there was an investigation intitiated by the RCMP into crimina activities.

And the charges resulting from those crminal investigations are just starting to be laid.

ADSCAM, ROGER. ADSCAM was criminal activity.

How effetive was that advertisement for the Liberal Party?

BTW. Do you ever sleep?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 10:10:47 AM


Harper was stealing the election at the same time he was pointing out how corrupt and crooked everyone else was!

So, excellent that the police have thrown the Adscam criminals in jail! Good job. They ought to be executed.

Now about the present criminal government. Their explanation is "we're no worst than the other crooks in government." LOL! At least they admit to being crooks!

What was Harper's role in the bribery scandal? How much was offered and why was Professor Tom Flanagan involved? Why did the University of Calgary use public monies to bankroll a partisan political CONservative supporting anti-environment group? Why did Harper authorize the money-laundering scheme and defrauding of Canadian taxpayers?

Harper needs to come clean. If not, drag him down to RCM Police Headquarters and interrogate him and put him under oath before a court of law and make him tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God! Please pray for Harper that he will stop obstructing justice and will come clean and tell the truth. Please Lord, make Harper stop lying and make him tell the truth! Amen.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 10:19:48 AM

"Websites come free of charge, as do computers, telephones, travel and transportation, the venues to give speeches, the printing costs and distribution and mailing costs of books... all free! Sure. Fairytales from the shallow "thinkers" who believe themselves to possess profound truths! LOL! In the land of the blind, those with a flashlight are still blind! LOL"

I think that counts as a straw man argument. Roger, Lessig didn't raise any campaign funds.

But to your point about sites not being free... they're functionally free. $15 a month will get you pretty sturdy web space with scads of high-quality download bandwidth, although you could host your campaign media over at YouTube. But my point remains, if you have anything worth saying, say it before you look like you're saying it in a quest for political power. If enough of us agree with what you have to say, and how you say it, and you've demonstrated leadership potential, you'll do just fine under restrictive campaign rules.

On the other hand, if all you've contributed to society so far is a few years of work as a lobbyist or a marketing shill, if all you've proven is your ability to weasel and whine and snipe, we don't need you, even if you know how to talk us into thinking otherwise given enough money.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-04-23 11:09:22 AM


Patience, my deranged friend, patience. It appears your gemmules are acting up and you are evolving into a frothing lizard.

This interpretation of accounting issue will be clarified shortly.

No taxpayer money was involved in purchasing of advertising, as in ADSCAM, the real criminal activity which took taxpayers' money and shuffled it into Liberal Party coffers.

Money used to purchase Conservative campaign advertising was obtained by free donations. Therefore, it cannot be a criminal issue, since no theft was involved.

This issue, in fact, is before the courts for clarification.

To get past your temporary dementia and its inherent memory loss, an examination of basic facts is necessary.

1) Clarification was requested by the Conservative Party when it challenged Elections Canada's reasons to question a practise that the NDP and Liberal Parties also use.

2) There's a question as to whether the Conservative Party spent more than the $18 million allowed. Some say the Party overspent the limit by $1million.

3) The day before a scheduled discovery hearing in which Elections Canada would be questioned by Party lawyers, EC sought the assistance of the RCMP to execute a warrant on their behalf.

The RCMP's involvement as the gathering agent of evidence in an accounting dispute differs from their role in ADSCAM, in which members of the Liberal Party and the bureaucracy were involved in direct theft of the taxpayer's money they were entrusted with.

4) Records will confirm the Conservative Party spend their own money on an advertising campaign. If it was effective, then why did the Conservative Party win only 14 of the 65 ridings in question? I have my sources on this and will update with more accurate figures.

And, for that matter, why did the Liberals' expediture of $30 million of taxpayers' money result in seat losses in Quebec?

If advertising dollars are effective in ‘stealing elections,' then why do the facts not match up with the allegations?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 11:10:05 AM

Earth to Laxative Set You Free, the police do not get involved in civil disputes. The police get involved in criminal matters. Harper's scumbag government is under criminal investigation. Ask anyone who knows. LOL!

No fraud? Hmm. I send you $40,000 and you immediately send me back $40,000 and then you claim from the public purse expenses of $40,000 (that you did not incur) and get $24,000 of taxpayer money fraudulently reimbursed for an expense you never incurred! Hmm. GST scam anyone? LOL!!!!

Ignorance is no excuse before the law! Put these scumbags in jail where they belong!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 11:17:34 AM

sorry, it must have been a momentary lapse into liberalism. EXECUTE THE SCOUNDRELS! Jail is too pampered a reward for their fraud and theft of the election!!!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 11:18:53 AM

How does a rabid liberal not understand what's about to happen here?

There will be an announcement that the RCMP is about to receive additional funding to hire new officers, and set up a task force to fight gang activity.

Investigation closed.

The liberals invented this stuff. Do they really think they have a patent on it?

Posted by: dp | 2008-04-23 11:24:58 AM


Out of a total of 65 in/out ridings involved, 47 were defeated while 18 ridings were won by the CPC.

Of the 18 winners, 7 were by CPC incumbents or were seats previously held by CPC members. Of the 11 remaining winners, 7 were previously Bloc held seats and only 4 were Liberal held.

Of the 127 seats held by the CPC, if we take away the 11 won seats from the Libs and Bloc and re-assign them to those parties the seat breakdowns are as follows CPC 116, Libs 100, Bloc 55.

Where was the theft?

See, ROGER. Any way you slice it, even if you give the gained seats back to the Liberals and Bloc, the CPC would still have had more seats and formed the best government Canadians have known in decads.

I know, I know. You're mind's made up and facts should not stand in the way of a good delusion.

Facts ARE important. Don't you agree, ROGER?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 11:28:56 AM

The advertising was not local, but national. That is the salient point. To counter that argument with local results, is to miss the issue entirely! LOL! Am I having a discourse with completely ignorant morons or merely unethical lying thieves? Do I really care? Nope. Everyone now knows Harper and his party are a pack of thieves who tried to steal taxpayers' hard earned money, who use taxpayer funds to mail out partisan campaign materials as junk mail, and who stole an election. Oh, almost forgot. They like to bribe MPs to buy votes! LOL! Judge Gomery, we need you! Auditor General Sheila Fraser, please get on the case! jailers, make sure there is space for the new crop of thieves from Ottawa! LOL!

$40,000 in-out. File false Claim to taxpayers to pay up $24,000. Fraud. Simple.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 11:40:50 AM

Earth calling ROGER.

Earth calling ROGER.

Advertising did NOT change the outcome of the election. The voters of this country would have voted in the CPC anyway.

Deal with the facts, ROGER, if you dare.

Accept the truth that's right in front of your eyes.

Your assertion of a stolen election has now undiputably proven to be incorrect.

Twice in two days, you have been defeated by the facts.

Take my advice, ROGER. You're now in a hole, so it's time to stop digging for more dirt. You'll only bury yourself further.

Stop now while you have a chance to maintain a sliver of dignity.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 11:52:43 AM

Everyone now knows Harper and his party are a pack of thieves who tried to steal taxpayers' hard earned money,
Posted by: ROGER | 23-Apr-08 11:40:50 AM

Sounds like it time for you to strap on your suicide belt and send them all to hell, while you go to paradise and get fuck mohammed's camels.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-04-23 11:53:21 AM

Laxative Set You Free claims to have produced facts. Two days worth! LOL! If you can call Bible Science facts, then one would have to accept that virgin girls can spontaneously get pregnant without any hanky panky or insemination going on! LOL! And that is just for starters. The other facts SYF refers to is a talking snake copulating with Eve, who the snake bought for an apple (Eve was a real cheap hooker), and that Adam and Eve's progeny started the human species through serial incest! I won't mention the other miraculous facts quite yet. SYF has these and other facts to present as evidence for our consideration. LOL! Sure.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 12:00:23 PM

Fact Check nails it in the post above!

If the CONs believe voters aren't stupid, throwing innumerable ads at them will not change their minds.

Therefore the party that does this, like the CONs did in 2006 with their overspending, is fiscally incompetent by wasting money on ads that will not work. And should not be governing.

Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-04-23 12:00:33 PM

The Stig, shouldn't you have enlisted in the US marines and be in Iraq right now? Be a man, put your balls on the IED chopping block for a grateful Bush and Cheney!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 12:01:55 PM

The Stig, shouldn't you have enlisted in the US marines and be in Iraq right now? Be a man, put your balls on the IED chopping block for a grateful Bush and Cheney!

Posted by: ROGER | 23-Apr-08 12:01:55 PM

And how do you know I didn't. Time for you to be a woman and strap on your suicide belt so you can spend eternity servicing mohammed's camels and goats.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-04-23 12:08:40 PM


You were defeated on a discussion of scientific facts when you could not provide scientific proof of your assertions.

The only time religion was introduced into the topic was in your attempts to shift the topic off scientific fact. Go back and check it out.


The facts bear out that in the ridings that are alleged to have been ‘stolen' due to questionable advertising strategies, that the election results would still have netted the same government.

ADSCAM netted few positive results for the Liberal Party in Quebec.

The nature of advertising is such that it presents options from which intelligent people can make choices.

Since we are all human beings, we are all equally capable of making choices for ourselves.

For proof of this assertion, pick up a copy of your local paper and flip though the pages for the car ads.

Every day, dozens of ads for different dealers try to entice the consumer to purchase their product. In the end, the consumer makes his own choice, informed or not.

Advertising is NOT mind-control, at least for human beings who understand the concept of self-control.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 12:16:59 PM

LOL! Set you Free is the best judge of scientific argument! LOL!!! Set You Free cannot even define what "science" is!! LOL! Must be a Harper fundie idiot.

SYF referred to "bible science". So, what the heck is bible science? God did it! Mary, who you been fooling around with? God. Who is the father of your baby? God. Joe, did you get Mary pregnant? No. ....LOL! SYF's bible science! Hallelujah! Praise be! Can snakes talk? You ever seen a talking snake? Bible says so, so it must be true! Bible science. And on and on in this nutty way til the end times! Let's pray! Morons.

STIG: EVERYONE ON THE INTERNET IS A HIGHLY DECORATED MARINE VET! You serve as a Flight Commander in the Submarine Unit of the Navy Seals desert unit? Did you win the Iron Cross?

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 12:26:54 PM

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND POLICE RAID ON CONservative Party Headquarters is not what voters expected when Harper claimed he would deliver clean, honest government. It took decades for Liberals to become corrupt. Harper was already corrupt when he stole the election with his lies and money laudering con scheme! Throw the thieves in jail!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 12:40:20 PM


I see you're admitting defeat once again by shifting the topic.

As anybody can clearly see, the topic of this thread was how advertising affects the outcome of elections.

In answer to your assertions that the election was ‘stolen,' facts were presented that showed the CPC would have won the election even if the seats gained from the parties they beat were given back to them.

Just like yesterday's debate, when asked for scientific proof and to keep the topic on the merit of scientific fact, it was you who shifted the topic.

Curiously, the shift was to a topic you know absolutely nothing about, a love-based philosophy.

I'm unsure what religious belief (a personal relationship with one's God) had to do with either scientific fact or political fact.

The fact is that you have now lost two fact-based arguments in two days.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 12:41:23 PM

Out of about thirty comments, one person making almost half of them, we have to diagnose a case of verbal diarrhea. The fastest cure would be a large shot of Immodium right up the old wazzoo.

Set,since you're engaging this boor, would you like to do the honours?

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-04-23 12:51:07 PM

LOL! Set You Free tells her teacher she has all the facts to prove her points in her biology research essay on evolution. When the teacher looks at her bibliography, there are books like the bible, evangelical church publications, but nothing from any science journal, no scientific references. When the teacher asks little SYF, where is the research literature, SYF stamps her foot and says its all there! LOL!

SYF, what is "science". Please define.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 12:57:32 PM

"And he shall be as a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his brethren." and shall take the name of Roger and fill the Shotgun Blog with BS.

Posted by: Sounder | 2008-04-23 12:59:25 PM

Harper knows how to con these bible-thumping idiots. All he has to do is wave the red flag of same sex marriage, abortion and prayer in schools and some racist stuff and frighten them with talk of interracial sex and marriage, and the flock of sheep are ready to follow wherever he leads them!

Of course Harper is not going to change the same sex marriage laws, no matter what he led the sheep to believe! He will let some backbench clown mess around with an anti-abortion through the back door private members bill, but won't take the issue on head on. Harper cons his silly followers, just as Nicholls pointed out on his blog thread, while pandering to a wider audience. Harper is wedded to the pursuit of power.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 1:01:49 PM

I am the light, the resurrection. He that believeth in me shall have everlasting orgasms.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 1:02:59 PM


I gave you a definition straight out of my dictionary.

You were presented with facts and, consistent with your line of argument, you rejected the dictionary definition.

And, if you will check my response, I concluded that you obviously believe you know more than the authors.

The fact remains, ROGER, when facts are presented, your arguments fall apart like a two-dollar tent.

In two days, you have clearly demonstrated facts are not your friend.

Yesterday, even though you give lip service to your belief in scientific fact, you could not provide one shred of scientific fact to back up your BELIEF in a flawed scientific theory. You lost your argument since your assertions could not be backed up by scientific proof.

And, earlier today, your assertion that the CPC had ‘stolen' the last election was proven false by the fact that even if the alleged swing seats had been given to the ‘victim' parties, the CPC still had enough seats to form a government.

But, instead of admitting defeat on the merit of fact, you continue to make statements which are completely unrelated to the two debates which you lost.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 1:08:36 PM

Harper teaches his followers that the best approach in life is to lie and cheat, invent "facts" and threaten and shout down opponents. Harper teaches that education is a waste of time--it just confuses people. The bible is all you need to succeed in life.

Set You Free cannot define what science is, but claims to be able to have scientific debate. In a debate about science, SYF invokes the bible as a reference to settle scientific matters! LOL! Yes, the bible! Need I say more?

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 1:13:49 PM

$40,000 in and out of a bank account in seconds, and one is entitled to get $24,000 of taxpayer money for that transaction? Is that right? Set You Free thinks it is ethical and right! Taxpayers are scammed and defrauded, and SYF thinks it is fine, because her friends are screwing Canadian taxpayers over! I think it is wrong no matter who is doing the scamming. It all comes down to morals and ethics. Harper and SYF has none.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 1:16:46 PM

And, ROGER puts his faith in an unprovable science fiction postulation, while at the same time purporting to be a person who only believes in the proveable. Hypocrite!

As ROGER's idol asserted: Da proof is da proof when it's da proof, because if it's the proof, den it's proven.

Even though it's unproveable due to lack of scientific evidence.

Yes, even though ROGER presents himself as an man whose assertions are based on fact, it is at the precise moment when the facts are presented that ROGER tries to slither away by changing the topic.

Your game is up, ROGER. The debate was strictly about scientific fact yesterday and about how advertising would not have changed the outcome of the election.

Like everything else in your miserable life, once again you have proven to be an easily-defeated loser who attempts to blame his losses on sombody else once confronted with facts.

Yes, ROGER, your freedom from responsibility betrays itself in your delusional statements.

It's impossible for you to admit you are the author of your own misfortune and that you live in a prison of your own design.

That's because your misery is somebody else's fault. Right, ROGER, loser of two debates in two days?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 1:26:09 PM


In the next election, everytime Harper tries to talk about Liberal corruption, the public will ask about Harper's own corruption. Harper just can't win. The tide has turned against him.

Harper is done. Even his erstwhile supporters are disillusioned with him. LOL!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 1:26:25 PM

Set You Free is like taliban everywhere. They always fall back on theology when they are cornered.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 1:28:39 PM

LOL! I am the greatest!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 1:29:43 PM


You seem to forget you are the one who lost both fact-based debates and that your fallback position was to introduce the topic of theology, which had nothing to do with the debate on scientific merit or the nature of advertising.

To reiterate, ROGER, it was you who tried to shift the topic onto theology, instead of acknowledging that you have been beaten with facts.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 2:04:55 PM

Set You Free, you are in the presence of a superior being. I am your better and nothing you do can change that. Your bible destroyed your mind at an early age. Theocratic education such as you received is child abuse. Your mind is forever ruined. Burn your bible and turn to the source of true knowledge, science! Until you do, you will remain delusional, a mere talibani in the wilds of Alberta. LOL! Poor hick, he really does believe he could actually take me on in debate! LOL!!! There there. LOL! I really ought not to be so harsh with these simpletons.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-23 2:09:23 PM


You have lost two fact-based debates.

Now you have nothing to offer but hollow assertions about something you know nothing about.

Oh, well. At least you're consistent.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-23 2:34:55 PM

Matthew, how about erasing all comments that are irrelevant. Then we can get on with something that makes sense and isn't irritating.

Posted by: DML | 2008-04-23 8:30:08 PM

Am I the only one who reads all those LOL's emanating from this ROGER dude's posts and gets images of some maniacal nut hunched over his keyboard cackling insanely as he types? For the record, none of his posts seem to merit a laugh-out-loud, nor a guffaw, not even a chortle. Perhaps, in his case, a titter although I usually draw the line at tittering.

Posted by: BoomNoZoom | 2008-04-23 10:11:19 PM

Snowrunner, the only thing your attitude promotes is collectivism. If it were true one could buy an election then Republicans would always win. No one buys your nonsense anymore.

Posted by: Faramir | 2008-04-23 10:27:40 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.