[PluggyRug]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

If the long form hits 20% of housholds, that's a hell of a lot of people. Margin of error is 1/sqrt(sample size). So if 20% of households can be thought of as ~20% of population (now 34 000 000), that means the margin of error is 0.04%, 19 times in 20. That's utterly miniscule.

If 80% are incomplete the margin of error is somewhat more than miniscule.

[kenmore]

The torys lied? oh my ! so whats new about that? harper is most secretive PM in our history.. he is covering lots of shit, so the best way is for them to lie.

[PluggyRug]

kenmore kenmore:

The torys lied? oh my ! so whats new about that? harper is most secretive PM in our history.. he is covering lots of shit, so the best way is for them to lie.

He took lessons from the Shawinigan dictator.

[kenmore]

Nobody gives the king dicktator lessons...he knows how to lie, cheat and screw Canadians all by his little lord fauntleroy self... Canada's first dictator PM!

[PluggyRug]

kenmore kenmore:

Nobody gives the king dicktator lessons...he knows how to lie, cheat and screw Canadians all by his little lord fauntleroy self... Canada's first dictator PM!

Yup that was an excellent description of Chretien.

[kenmore]

http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/

Here is a list of lies and broken promises by happless harper!

[kenmore]

Harper has told hundreds of lies in his role as shill to spread FUD about global warming for the oil patch.
Harper said during the election that there was no recession in Canada.
Harper said during the election that there was no possibility of a deficit.
Harper claimed the Liberal were proposing a carbon tax would be a crippling burden, that it was just a tax grab. Yet the Liberal platform said no such thing. They called for a revenue neutral carbon tax with offsetting income tax rebates.
Harper claimed his environmental platform was the strongest of all parties. This is nonsense. The Harper conservatives are the most anti-environmental in 40 years.
Harper claimed the NDP platform called for new income taxes. It actually called for cuts. Harper’s plan called for dropping corporate income tax to 12%, one of the lowest rates of any developed countries. The NDP simply planned to block future corporate tax cuts announced by Harper.
Harper claimed ending public funding for elections was a cost saving measure. What a strange co-incidence it would cripple the opposition who were counting on the money to pay bills. What a strange co-incidence it decimated the Liberal war chest and inflated his own. What a strange co-incidence it made it trivially easy for the wealthy Conservative supporters to have the best government money can buy.
When the three opposition parties united to form coalition, Harper lied repeatedly saying what they were doing was a “coup d’état” “stealing power”, “undemocratic”, “unprecedented” … He shouted, “I am not responsible to turn over power to a group like that” The Prime Minister is required by law to relinquish power if he loses the confidence of parliament. It is not clear if Harper is lying about the law, or if he is, like Nixon, making a claim that he is above it. Most Canadians believed Harper’s hysterical BS about a perfectly legal activity of parliament. Harper insisted that he had the legal right to rule, and the coalition did not because they did not campaign as a coalition during the election. That is a lie. Any group that can form a majority in parliament has the right to govern. Harper insisted he had the right to rule rather than the coalition because his party got more popular votes than the Liberals. That also is a lie. Any group that can form a majority in parliament has the right to govern. He got away with it because Canadians don’t expect their Prime Minister to lie about matters of law. Further they didn’t expect the CBC and CTV to let such lies slide without comment. Harper’s poll numbers are at an all-time high because he was able to sell his lies.
Harper tried to get Canada involved in the Iraq war and the Afghan war, but just prior to the election he had a change of heart and decided the Afghan war should end in 2011. How convenient this move took the issue off the election table. Since the election, he has done nothing to toward that goal. It looks as though he has no intention of winding down the war after all. That was yet another brazen lie.
Election Funding
The Conservatives announced, as an austerity measure, they were chopping the $1.94 CAD per vote election public election funding. They claimed the moral high ground, claiming any opposition was motivated by greed at the public trough. I think the true motive will become clear from the following table of how funding would look before and after the Conservative measure: Effect of Rescinding Public Election Funding
Before After Party
war chest relative
wealth war chest relative
wealth
.
Why I would never vote for Harper
Here are ten of my reasons why I would never vote for Harper. The most important are near the top.From http://mindprod.com/politics/harper.html

[Lemmy]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

If 80% are incomplete the margin of error is somewhat more than miniscule.

If 80% are incomplete, then they should fix that, not scrap the other 20%.

[PluggyRug]

Lemmy Lemmy:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

If 80% are incomplete the margin of error is somewhat more than miniscule.

If 80% are incomplete, then they should fix that, not scrap the other 20%.

Then we must agree to disagree.

[hurley_108]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

If the long form hits 20% of housholds, that's a hell of a lot of people. Margin of error is 1/sqrt(sample size). So if 20% of households can be thought of as ~20% of population (now 34 000 000), that means the margin of error is 0.04%, 19 times in 20. That's utterly miniscule.

If 80% are incomplete the margin of error is somewhat more than miniscule.

You clearly understand nothing of statistics, or the census. They get 1 in 5 households to fill out the long form, because it would be excessively onerous on the population and the staff to give it to all households. When you survey 1 in 5 of every man, woman, and child in the country, you get a pretty damn good idea of what's going on.

[DrCaleb]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

If the long form hits 20% of housholds, that's a hell of a lot of people. Margin of error is 1/sqrt(sample size). So if 20% of households can be thought of as ~20% of population (now 34 000 000), that means the margin of error is 0.04%, 19 times in 20. That's utterly miniscule.

If 80% are incomplete the margin of error is somewhat more than miniscule.

You clearly understand nothing of statistics, or the census. They get 1 in 5 households to fill out the long form, because it would be excessively onerous on the population and the staff to give it to all households. When you survey 1 in 5 of every man, woman, and child in the country, you get a pretty damn good idea of what's going on.

Those figures are so important in determining long term term trends, it's going to be impossible to plan for things like roads, housing, schools . . . which it seems is what the CPC want.

Replacing facts with Dogma seems to be their forte.

[Benn]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Those figures are so important in determining long term term trends, it's going to be impossible to plan for things like roads, housing, schools . . . which it seems is what the CPC want.

Replacing facts with Dogma seems to be their forte.

As much as I lean conservative I can't get passed a few things on this. Where is there any proof of all these emails that lead them to do this, and where is the mass support of them being made voluntary. For something as much of a pain in the ass as is filling out the long form there sure is a lot of public support for keeping it, and as DrCaleb says how do we plan for the future?

The fact I've really seen no notable support for this move outside the CPC makes me pretty upset with this government who seems to have stopped even caring what Canadians want. They are up to something here, its the only reason to stay the course as they are and I can't help but have the same thought in the back of my mind as Caleb alluded too. It does not help that they have been so bad at public disclosure up to this point.

The line will be like,
"We need to spend $X billion on this program due to the increasing needs of a certain demographic, we can't prove there is a need, just trust us!"

[PluggyRug]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

You clearly understand nothing of statistics, or the census. They get 1 in 5 households to fill out the long form, because it would be excessively onerous on the population and the staff to give it to all households. When you survey 1 in 5 of every man, woman, and child in the country, you get a pretty damn good idea of what's going on.

Rubbish. Three out of five, and I would agree. One out of five gives a very poor idea.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

You clearly understand nothing of statistics, or the census. They get 1 in 5 households to fill out the long form, because it would be excessively onerous on the population and the staff to give it to all households. When you survey 1 in 5 of every man, woman, and child in the country, you get a pretty damn good idea of what's going on.

Rubbish. Three out of five, and I would agree. One out of five gives a very poor idea.

That's why they are called 'Statistics'. You don't have to ask the questions of everybody in order to be able to be able to make accurate statements about a population, if you sample a large enough portion of the population. Very accurate statements, that have an error rate - as Hurley pointed out - of .04% 19 times out of 20. So if statistics say 13.2% (made up number) of the population speaks French, that number is accurate to (+/-) .04% 19 out of 20 times, and it might be .05% that other 1 in 20 times.

Funny, I see people up in arms all the time over a political poll that has a sample size of 1200, or even 120 people, out of 34 million (3.52X 10^-6% of the population) and they take it as gospel! Stats Can samples 20% of the population to get extremely accurate data, and somehow the CPC says this number isn't worth the time or money or the intrusive nature of the questions.

When has StatsCan ever been accused of compromising the privacy of anyone? Why after all these decades are the questions suddenly intrusive? It's bullshit, and many people see right through what the Conservatives are trying to do.

[hurley_108]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

You clearly understand nothing of statistics, or the census. They get 1 in 5 households to fill out the long form, because it would be excessively onerous on the population and the staff to give it to all households. When you survey 1 in 5 of every man, woman, and child in the country, you get a pretty damn good idea of what's going on.

Rubbish. Three out of five, and I would agree. One out of five gives a very poor idea.

I would tell you why you're wrong but your unimaginable ignorance means it would be a complete waste of time. Good day.