Howard (au. PM) moves a toe into Iraq and moves against gays

[TheDarkling]

I have observed the politics of Blair, Howard and Bush and have concluded that the three of them are homosexual lovers.
That is all.

The problem with Blair is that he thinks (or thought) that he can influence Bush’s attitudes like he could with Clinton, he can't really manage it though so he has attached himself to an out of control train heading for derailment.

[Darth Wong]

1) The party's leadership election method (each riding got the same weight, no matter how many members it had) was deliberately set up to make it impossible for the larger western membership to decide the outcome. Harper won not just because of his western base, but because he was supported by one-third of Quebec and Atlantic members and fully 57% of Ontario.

Oh puh-lease. Conservative Party memberships were being vacuumed up by Alliance party members, and church groups were publicly exhorting their followers here in Ontario to vote for Harper.

2) I followed the Conservative leadership race very closely, and I never saw anyone even claim that religious groups were "buying up all the party memberships and block-voting for him". Source, please.

I live in Ontario, for fuck's sake. You don't. Trust me, 57% of Ontario does not like Stephen Harper. But the fundies all do, and the church groups were out in force exhorting fundies to buy up memberships and vote for him, since he's a worthless shit-for-brains fundie himself.

(Perhaps you're thinking of Stockwell Day? There were stories about him doing that in both the 2000 and 2002 Canadian Alliance races.)

No, I live in Ontario and I know what happened here during the recent nomination process.

[Col. Crackpot]

isn't Howard's primary rival that old white guy who bragged about his 'bling-bling' and knowlegde of ghetto culture?

[BoredShirtless]

isn't Howard's primary rival that old white guy who bragged about his 'bling-bling' and knowlegde of ghetto culture?

Ali G?

[White Cat]

Oh puh-lease. Conservative Party memberships were being vacuumed up by Alliance party members, and church groups were publicly exhorting their followers here in Ontario to vote for Harper.

Source?

I live in Ontario, for fuck's sake. You don't. Trust me, 57% of Ontario does not like Stephen Harper. But the fundies all do, and the church groups were out in force exhorting fundies to buy up memberships and vote for him

Source?

[Darth Wong]

Oh puh-lease. Conservative Party memberships were being vacuumed up by Alliance party members, and church groups were publicly exhorting their followers here in Ontario to vote for Harper.

Source?

My fucking radio.

I live in Ontario, for fuck's sake. You don't. Trust me, 57% of Ontario does not like Stephen Harper. But the fundies all do, and the church groups were out in force exhorting fundies to buy up memberships and vote for him

Source?

Me, asshole. I live here in fucking Ontario, and I know what the local church groups were saying on the radio and in the flyers I found on my goddamned doorstep. Drop the arrogant pissant attitude, numb-nuts. You think you know Ontario more than I do, from a thousands kilometres away based on what you read in the newspaper?

Since when does someone have to provide a "source" for his own direct observations, fuckhead?

[Xon]

isn't Howard's primary rival that old white guy who bragged about his 'bling-bling' and knowlegde of ghetto culture?

Howard's primary rival in Australia went -> Kim Beasley, Simon Crean(with Beasley making a failed leadership challenge), Mark Latham.

In Australia, choicing a party leadership is nowere near the circus it is in the USA, and most of the internal party politics goes on behind closed doors, giving any party you care to name in AUS politics the apearance of a united front.

Only went someone is positive they have a good chance of a successful leadership challenge will they make the attempt.

The AUS political system is a little wierd.

[Stuart Mackey]

I have observed the politics of Blair, Howard and Bush and have concluded that the three of them are homosexual lovers.
That is all.

The problem with Blair is that he thinks (or thought) that he can influence Bush’s attitudes like he could with Clinton, he can't really manage it though so he has attached himself to an out of control train heading for derailment.

The problem is that in doing what he/they have done they appear to have surrendered some of their freedom of foreign policy by linking themselves to an American policy in such a way that it is difficult to disengage without severe consequences at home. In doing this they have ignored the national interest without any tangible benfit.

[White Cat]

Since when does someone have to provide a "source" for his own direct observations, fuckhead?

In this case, your "own direct observations" were the source I was asking for, since you didn't give any indication of where you were getting it from in your first two posts.

Source?

Me, asshole. I live here in fucking Ontario, and I know what the local church groups were saying on the radio and in the flyers I found on my goddamned doorstep.

Ah, so your argument is based entirely on anecdotal evidence. I see.

In that case, please explain how you got from "I saw some church groups advertising to support Harper" to "Harper's leadership victory was mainly/significantly due to religious fanatics block-voting for him" as your first post implied.

The claim that Harper is a "fundie" is also rather dubious, since he's been known to criticize the religious right ("Buchananism" is the word he's used for it) and apparently he quit the Reform Party in 1997 over fears that it was headed in that direction. (Source: a Toronto Star article from about a month ago which seems to have expired from their site.)

[Patrick Degan]

Since when does someone have to provide a "source" for his own direct observations, fuckhead?

In this case, your "own direct observations" were the source I was asking for, since you didn't give any indication of where you were getting it from in your first two posts.

Me, asshole. I live here in fucking Ontario, and I know what the local church groups were saying on the radio and in the flyers I found on my goddamned doorstep.

Ah, so your argument is based entirely on anecdotal evidence. I see.

A direct observation is not "anecdotal evidence". If Darth Wong had said "I heard from somewhere that this is what these people say", that would be anecdotal.

[Darth Wong]

Since when does someone have to provide a "source" for his own direct observations, fuckhead?

In this case, your "own direct observations" were the source I was asking for, since you didn't give any indication of where you were getting it from in your first two posts.

You were asking me to cite my own direct observations as a source for my own direct observations? Are you on drugs?

Source?

Me, asshole. I live here in fucking Ontario, and I know what the local church groups were saying on the radio and in the flyers I found on my goddamned doorstep.

Ah, so your argument is based entirely on anecdotal evidence. I see.

You are obviously too stupid to recognize the distinction between direct observations given as examples of a broad movement and anecdotal evidence used to prove a generalization. Clearly, you have been attempting to follow threads and noticed that people often characterize personal observations as anecdotal evidence, without bothering to learn that it is only particular kinds of direct observations used in particular ways which qualify as fallacious use of anecdotal evidence. It is an unfortunate reality of bulletin boards that we have to be plagued by imbeciles such as yourself who merely skim the surface of a concept before rushing to use it in an aggressive fashion.

In that case, please explain how you got from "I saw some church groups advertising to support Harper" to "Harper's leadership victory was mainly/significantly due to religious fanatics block-voting for him" as your first post implied.

Two points: 1) you asked for a source for my observations. I answered that no such source was necessary because an observation is just that: an observation. 2) I am not particularly interested in digging through my old newspapers to read all of the various articles about how Harper drew most of his support here in Ontario from the religious right, and how the entire conservative movement here is in crisis as a result of its Americanization at the hands of westerners such as yourself. If you believe that the public exhortations of church groups for people to vote for Stephen Harper were the only piece of evidence for weak support in Ontario for Stephen Harper, that is your perogative. The fact that Ontarians gave so many of their votes to the pretty blonde rich girl Belinda Stronach should have made something twig in your brain, but apparently not. And frankly, your contention to have superior knowledge about Ontario politics from a thousand km away based is still just as ridiculous now as it was when you first started.

The claim that Harper is a "fundie" is also rather dubious, since he's been known to criticize the religious right ("Buchananism" is the word he's used for it) and apparently he quit the Reform Party in 1997 over fears that it was headed in that direction. (Source: a Toronto Star article from about a month ago which seems to have expired from their site.)

You obviously weren't paying attention during the furor over gay marriage. Albertans polled against gay marriage; Ontarians for it. And Harper proudly threw his hat in with the rednecks. On most of the key issues, Ontarians poll strongly against Harper's key platforms. Harper's only hope in Ontario is that Ontarians will be so disgusted with Liberal cronyism that they will hold their noses and vote for a man whose basic ideology clashes with theirs on numerous fronts.

[White Cat]

You were asking me to cite my own direct observations as a source for my own direct observations? Are you on drugs?

*sigh* I will explain this again, using smaller words...

1) In your first two posts, you claimed that Harper won the leadership because "religious fanatics bought up all the party memberships and block-voted for him." (You also included "western rednecks" in this, but seem to have conceded that point.)

2) You did not provide any sources to verify this in your first two posts.

3) After I asked you twice, in your third post you said that you had heard radio ads and seen flyers from church groups urging their followers to vote for Harper.

4) Therefore, your third post successfully provided the "source" I was requesting. Thank you.

Ah, so your argument is based entirely on anecdotal evidence. I see.

You are obviously too stupid to recognize the distinction between direct observations given as examples of a broad movement and anecdotal evidence used to prove a generalization. Clearly, you have been attempting to follow threads and noticed that people often characterize personal observations as anecdotal evidence, without bothering to learn that it is only particular kinds of direct observations used in particular ways which qualify as fallacious use of anecdotal evidence.

Well, then please enlighten me as to how "I saw/heard some church groups in my area advertising to support Harper, therefore Harper's leadership victory was mainly/significantly due to religious fanatics block-voting for him" is not a fallacious use of anecdotal evidence.

Two points: 1) you asked for a source for my observations.

No, I asked for a source for your allegations about the reason for Harper's win. You then (eventually) provided me with your observations, which count as a source. See above.

2) I am not particularly interested in digging through my old newspapers to read all of the various articles about how Harper drew most of his support here in Ontario from the religious right, and how the entire conservative movement here is in crisis as a result of its Americanization at the hands of westerners such as yourself.

Well, if you're "not particularly interested" in presenting non-anecdotal sources to back up your arguments, I can't force you to. Just don't be surprised when people refuse to take your allegations at face value.

If you believe that the public exhortations of church groups for people to vote for Stephen Harper were the only piece of evidence for weak support in Ontario for Stephen Harper, that is your perogative.

What about the national religious groups who don't like Harper? And if we're allowed to use personal anecdotes as evidence, then I've heard about lots of religious people/leaders who consider Harper (and the merged Conservatives in general) to be no different than the Liberals on "moral issues."

The fact that Ontarians gave so many of their votes to the pretty blonde rich girl Belinda Stronach should have made something twig in your brain, but apparently not.

I fail to see how getting "only" 57% in Ontario against Stronach (27%) and Clement (16%), both of whom are from that province, is evidence that Ontarians believe Harper is a fundamentalist, especially considering that Stronach had the money to buy thousands of memberships and was personally endorsed by prominent Ontarians like Mike Harris.

And frankly, your contention to have superior knowledge about Ontario politics from a thousand km away based is still just as ridiculous now as it was when you first started.

I contend nothing of the kind. In fact, looking back, the only claim I've made concerning Ontario is the 57/27/16% figure.

My contention is that seeing some local church groups advertising to support Harper is nowhere close to sufficient evidence that Harper's leadership victory was mainly/significantly due to religious fanatics block-voting for him. </broken record>

[Darth Wong]

You were asking me to cite my own direct observations as a source for my own direct observations? Are you on drugs?

*sigh* I will explain this again, using smaller words...

1) In your first two posts, you claimed that Harper won the leadership because "religious fanatics bought up all the party memberships and block-voted for him." (You also included "western rednecks" in this, but seem to have conceded that point.)

Hardly. Ontario's rural rednecks were Harper's biggest voting block. The Alliance has never had a chance in Toronto. And why don't you check out the size of ridings? Out west, Conservative ridings have more memberships than they do in Ontario, which means that the scheme through which votes were counted exaggerated their level of support in Ontario by giving each riding an equal say in the outcome regardless of the number of members there. But of course, you gloss over all of that, don't you?

2) You did not provide any sources to verify this in your first two posts.

3) After I asked you twice, in your third post you said that you had heard radio ads and seen flyers from church groups urging their followers to vote for Harper.

4) Therefore, your third post successfully provided the "source" I was requesting. Thank you.

More bullshit; the source was always my direct observation of the behaviour of church groups in this area. I merely clarified those observations in light of a nitpicking moron.

Well, then please enlighten me as to how "I saw/heard some church groups in my area advertising to support Harper, therefore Harper's leadership victory was mainly/significantly due to religious fanatics block-voting for him" is not a fallacious use of anecdotal evidence.

Show me where I made that statement, moron. As I said already, I said that Ontarians do not like Harper's agenda based on my knowledge of Ontario politics, and I gave B as an example of A. You distorted that into "B, therefore A".

Well, if you're "not particularly interested" in presenting non-anecdotal sources to back up your arguments, I can't force you to. Just don't be surprised when people refuse to take your allegations at face value.

It's not an "argument", moron. I stated a claim of fact: that the political climate in Ontario is far more hostile to western anti-gay bigotry and pro-Bush bullshit than the redneck contingent out west. This is supported by every polling result. Your only countervailing evidence to my observation of every talk show, every radio show, every newspaper article, every polling result on every goddamned social issue is to complain that I should be able to produce print versions of those observations because you don't trust my observations of my own province. Oh yeah, and your moronic claim that the conservative party vote is actually representative of Ontario's general population

What about the national religious groups who don't like Harper? And if we're allowed to use personal anecdotes as evidence, then I've heard about lots of religious people/leaders who consider Harper (and the merged Conservatives in general) to be no different than the Liberals on "moral issues."

The same could be said of religious groups who think Bush is not hardcore enough, moron. The fact remains that only Harper is pushing their anti-gay, anti-secular agenda.

I fail to see how getting "only" 57% in Ontario against Stronach (27%) and Clement (16%), both of whom are from that province, is evidence that Ontarians believe Harper is a fundamentalist, especially considering that Stronach had the money to buy thousands of memberships and was personally endorsed by prominent Ontarians like Mike Harris.

Stronach is a silly blonde rich girl with zero political experience, moron! How could she even get 27% of the vote unless even the conservative party membership was not particularly pleased with Harper, never mind the general population?

I contend nothing of the kind. In fact, looking back, the only claim I've made concerning Ontario is the 57/27/16% figure.

Which in turn relies upon the moronic notion that the conservative party membership in Ontario (after the mass conversion of Alliance party members to Conservative party members) is somehow representative of the general population

My contention is that seeing some local church groups advertising to support Harper is nowhere close to sufficient evidence that Harper's leadership victory was mainly/significantly due to religious fanatics block-voting for him. </broken record>

And your idiotic refusal to acknowledge the fact that Harper supports numerous anti-secular anti-gay agendas that the people of Ontario do not support in polls, but I guess you'll just quietly sweep that under the carpet in your moronic goal to prove that there is not a major difference between the political views of people in Ontario and rednecks in Alberta.

[White Cat]

Hardly. Ontario's rural rednecks were Harper's biggest voting block. The Alliance has never had a chance in Toronto.

Really. Well, let's look at the results for metropolitan Toronto:

Code: Select all

(Order of percentages is Clement/Harper/Stronach)
35005  Beaches—East York        26  44  31
35015  Davenport                29  41  30
35016  Don Valley East          16  62  22
35017  Don Valley West          24  51  25
35019  Eglinton—Lawrence        37  39  24
35022  Etobicoke Centre         17  59  24
35023  Etobicoke—Lakeshore      22  51  26
35024  Etobicoke North          20  43  37
35068  Parkdale—High Park       29  43  28
35080  Scarborough—Agincourt    13  53  34
35081  Scarborough Centre       14  59  27
35082  Scarborough—Guildwood    13  55  32
35083  Scarborough—Rouge River  34  40  26
35084  Scarborough Southwest    15  60  25
35077  St. Paul's               34  43  23
35093  Toronto Centre           25  38  37
35094  Toronto—Danforth         22  45  33
35095  Trinity—Spadina          25  42  33
35100  Willowdale               19  55  25
35103  York Centre              20  56  24
35105  York South—Weston        17  46  37
35106  York West                14  19  67

Harper won ten ridings with a majority, eleven ridings with a plurality (two of those were very close), and only lost one. He totaled 48% in Toronto (Stronach got 31%, Clement got 22%).

And why don't you check out the size of ridings? Out west, Conservative ridings have more memberships than they do in Ontario, which means that the scheme through which votes were counted exaggerated their level of support in Ontario by giving each riding an equal say in the outcome regardless of the number of members there.

So what? He still got 57% in Ontario itself. The system couldn't have exaggerated Harper's support in Ontario; in fact, it downplayed his support nationwide by giving less weight to the high-membership ridings where his support was the strongest. (FWIW, I read somewhere that if you disregard the 100-points-per-riding system, Harper got something like 60-65% of the national membership vote.)

But of course, you gloss over all of that, don't you?

Excuse me? I was the one who pointed that out to you in my very first post!

Well, then please enlighten me as to how "I saw/heard some church groups in my area advertising to support Harper, therefore Harper's leadership victory was mainly/significantly due to religious fanatics block-voting for him" is not a fallacious use of anecdotal evidence.

Show me where I made that statement, moron.

[Stephen Harper] won the Conservative Party nomination after a shitload of western rednecks and religious fanatics bought up all the party memberships and block-voted for him.

When I pressed you for a source, you eventually offered up the ads you'd seen, and nothing else.

As I said already, I said that Ontarians do not like Harper's agenda based on my knowledge of Ontario politics, and I gave B as an example of A. You distorted that into "B, therefore A".

Nice bait-and-switch. You know very well that I'm talking about whether Harper's victory was mainly/signifcantly because "western rednecks and religious fanatics bought up all the party memberships and block-voted for him", not whether Ontarians like his policies.

Oh yeah, and your moronic claim that the conservative party vote is actually representative of Ontario's general population

I contend nothing of the kind. In fact, looking back, the only claim I've made concerning Ontario is the 57/27/16% figure.

Which in turn relies upon the moronic notion that the conservative party membership in Ontario (after the mass conversion of Alliance party members to Conservative party members) is somehow representative of the general population

I never claimed anything like that.

The same could be said of religious groups who think Bush is not hardcore enough, moron. The fact remains that only Harper is pushing their anti-gay, anti-secular agenda.

And your idiotic refusal to acknowledge the fact that Harper supports numerous anti-secular anti-gay agendas that the people of Ontario do not support in polls

One position does not an anti-secular agenda make. Yes, Harper is against gay marriage, but he is also in favour of gay civil unions, which the fundamentalists oppose. What are the other religious/social conservative policies does Harper have? (And I'm sure you won't forget to provide sources...)

but I guess you'll just quietly sweep that under the carpet in your moronic goal to prove that there is not a major difference between the political views of people in Ontario and rednecks in Alberta.

I never claimed that, either. (Although now that you mention it, I saw at least one source that had Albertans and Ontarians polling within the margin of error on gay marriage.)

Stronach is a silly blonde rich girl with zero political experience, moron! How could she even get 27% of the vote unless even the conservative party membership was not particularly pleased with Harper, never mind the general population?

1) Harper beat Stronach and Clement on their own turf. (Historically, voters seem to be more likely to vote for someone who's from their area. I can't say I think this is the best way to decide, but whataya gonna do...)

2) Stronach had the support of prominent Ontario politicians like Mike Harris and Bill Davis.

3) Stronach used her money to buy thousands of instant memberships in Ontario and Quebec.

4) Hello, my name is Arnold Schwarzenegger.