Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Hands off the Internet | Main | David Orchard lost »

Friday, October 17, 2008

Some random thoughts

As the weekend cometh, a few things come to mind.

1) How many pundits who are insisting the Conservatives hit their high-water mark at 143 seats were just as convinced that they had hit their high-water mark at 124 two years ago?

2) If Quebec voters really wanted to "block" Harper, wouldn't they have voted Liberal?  Doesn't the Bloc success thus say more about Dion's weaknesses?

3) If the Democrats really have the election in the bag, why are they defending ACORN's efforts to steal it?

4) Why does the CCP care more about foreigners than they do about their own people?

5) What does Barack Obama do (should he be empowered to do anything) if the Iraqi government asks him to keep troops in Iraq?

6) Joe Canadian (remember him?), Joe Six-pack, and now Joe the plumber.  Am I the only person who hasn't met someone named Joseph in the last twenty years?

and finally . . .

7) Hasn't anyone in the Liberal Party figured out that their victories in the 1990s came because voters believed them to be a centrist party, rather than a leftist one?  The fellow who beat them twice sure did.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on October 17, 2008 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some random thoughts:


1)The water will get lower if the Libs and NDP merge (which, if they intend to ever win again, they should), moving us to a two party system.
2) Bloc/Parti politics should be limited to a provincial level. They are harmful to the democratic process of the country. And yes, says just as much about Dion as it does Harper. Although, Quebec made their anti-Liberal statement in 2006, this time it was more so anti-Harper.
3) Can even the Western Standard support the racist, corrupt, fiscally UN-conservative Republican party?
4) Who cares.
5) Make a politically neutral decision based on politically neutral information. In fact, all politicians should do this all the time, sad state of affairs that they do not.
6) Woodbridge, ON... 62% of males named Joe.
7) Liberal success in 90s was due to unshakeable political acumen and unprecedented likeable-ness of one Jean Chretien.

Posted by: jarvisbloor | 2008-10-17 10:32:20 AM

Let be real here, the allegations against ACORN have been totally discredited as a pure partisan attack at this point.


The only "fraud" involved was by p/t canvass staff who defrauded ACORN by making up names on a voter registration cards in order to get paid.

Posted by: josh | 2008-10-17 2:20:59 PM

Gee Jarvisbloor, you sound like one real open minded guy. The Republican Party is about as racist as you are. Or maybe, just you are a racist? Not nice when someone loosely throws the term around is it? Its called character assassination, pal! I don't plan to vote for Obama. I oppose his plans to increase spending and taxes. I disagree with any premature withdrawal from Iraq. I disagree with his views on Guanatanamo. I oppose him on abortion, gay rights, and don't trust him(based on his legislative record) on gun owner rights. I don't believe talking to the psycho leader of Iran is a good idea. I think that his association with Ayers is relevant. Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist(bombed Pentagon, police station, etc.) who Obama associated with. At a minimum, it shows poor judgment at a time when the U.S. is engaged in a war on terrorism. How many Canadians would support a politician who befriended a member of the Quebec terrorist group that caused the 1970 crisis? I think Wright is a foul-mouthed, anti-American preacher. I think it says a lot about Obama that he sat in the pews and never confronted the man. At a minimum, it shows a lack of moral courage. At worst, it suggests that he may be sympathetic to some of Wright's views. These are the reasons why I won't support Obama. You will probably view them as trumped up excuses but I think they are legitimate issues. I always find it fascinating how fast leftists throw the word racism around when they can't effectively debate conservatives. P.S. The problem(ACORN) is that new voters are being registered with no one making sure that the new voters are legitimate(actual persons with legal documentation and real home addresses). ACORN has handled a large number of these registrations. Now, we have found discrepancies in at least 14 states including one ACORN office where 2,000 registration forms were questionable and another where they had a man register 73 times. The Democrats have a history of attempting to rig elections. Look at the histories of Chicago and Jersey City politics to name a few for examples. In Chicago, the Democrats have proven especially able at having the dead show up at polling stations. However, I guess that means nothing to Canadian supporters of the Liberals and NDP who will excuse Democrat bad behavior and blame Republicans for everything. You are the guys who thought Trudeau was great, Reagan was horrible, and that the U.S. was as evil as the Soviets. I still remember after 9/11 when they showed on C-SPAN a Canadian townhall discussion about the attacks. I was amazed at the number of leftist Canadians who thought the U.S. deserved it. I wonder how many NDPers and Liberals will be cheering if another attack occurs on America. Or are terrorist attacks on America more acceptable in leftist eyes when the sitting president is conservative?

Posted by: Jeff | 2008-10-17 8:30:22 PM

Rigged elections you say? ACORN is trivial compared to the-powers-that-were in Florida 2000.

There are legitimate political philosophies behind the Republican party, but McCain is not representative of them. A significant portion of his supporters are certainly racist, including many Hilary-backing Democrats.

And Jeff, if you are comfortable with the state of affairs left behind by the Bush regime and quality of characters such as Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. then feel free to vote for them continuing to have their way the American people. May I suggest a change of position though a la the kama sutra? At least ask them if you can be awake this time and perhaps even on top, instead of being drugged and bent over the table.

Obama seems to accept opposing views and is truly capable of intellectual discourse. This has been sorely lacking on the GOP side for some time.

Posted by: jarvisbloor | 2008-10-17 11:27:46 PM

GOP-leaning Chicago Tribune endorses Obama:

Posted by: jarvisbloor | 2008-10-17 11:30:34 PM

"Am I the only person who hasn't met someone named Joseph in the last twenty years?"

You REALLY need to get out more.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel | 2008-10-18 9:25:43 AM

It was the Democrats who tried to rig the Florida vote in 2000. Time to call me a racist, isn't it? I've seen birds that could squawk more words than "racist", but they had brains.

Posted by: ebt | 2008-10-18 3:49:04 PM

We'll never know if the Republicans rigged the vote in Florida 2000, just like we will never know if the Separatists tried to rig the referendum in 1995. All "evidence" (supposedly spoiled ballots) was destroyed in the latter case by a court order. Don't know about Florida, but expect the same. Let's bury it and put it to rest. I suppose somebody on our behalf decided we couldn't handle the truth, just in case there had been foul play! Reminds me of a friend of mine, who said: "Democracy is much too important to leave it in the hands of ordinary people..."

Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2008-10-18 5:13:03 PM

Was it not true that the Democrats were the supporters of the organization that Senator Bird belonged to? Can false voter cards ever rise to the level of a crime if Liberals do it? Can lack of proof constitute certain doubt about a conclusion or did you stop beating your wife?

Was it not the Demos who opposed the Civil Rights Act, and implemented Jim Crow.

Posted by: gord | 2008-10-19 5:34:43 PM


"Obama seems to accept opposing views and is truly capable of intellectual discourse. This has been sorely lacking on the GOP side for some time."

Yes, so accepting of opposing views he remains friends with racists like Rev. Wright and terrorist wannabes like Ayers.

I feel better already.

When he breaks bread with David Duke, let me know. Then, I might believe you.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-19 5:46:56 PM

After all the GOP lights have shined on Ayers and found, oooooooooo, that they both sat on a school board which included Republicans as well. Good, you keep banging that drum, maybe a Bin Laden connection will show up for you. As for Obama's poor choice in choosing a fiery, out-spoken preacher, again what does it really tell us? That religious leaders should be censored? Maybe Obama is an agnostic and he just needed a church to get elected by the unwashed masses, well poor choice there Barrack, but maybe blind faith shouldn't be a requirement for public office.

Posted by: jarvisbloor | 2008-10-19 9:12:49 PM


You missed the point entirely. Your assertion was that he accepts opposing views. Now you are backpeddling on how those views aren't so oppositional after all.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-19 11:35:55 PM


Opposing views in that he sits at the table with opponents and discusses middle ground. How did you read otherwise into that?

Then I said he goes to church cuz, if he didn't, nobody in Kentucky etc would vote for him. So, stop making a belief in Christ be the trump card, there are good people out there who are not religious.

Posted by: jarvisbloor | 2008-10-20 10:17:52 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.