He views the Liberal strategy in a certain way that you don’t like, but that doesnt make him bigoted. I agree with him that you’re debasing the real meaning of the word.

“a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding ideology.”

A person who is incapable of seeing two sides to an issue is a bigot.

People who refuse to see any other possible interpretation to abstentions as valuable, are bigots.

I can retract this statement if you’d like Scott, but that wouldn’t make it true.

What is the liberal plan anyways besides helping churches pay for security. Something that sickens me a little.

Does anyone know how the second choice affects the numbers?

Seems to me that most Conservative and NDP voters would have the Liberals as their second choice. If you are primarily a Conservative voter you would never in a million years vote for the NDP, that only leaves the Greens or the Libs. The same logic (reversed) could be applied to NDP voters.

Because an anti-Harper feeling will generally see anti-Harper voters solidify around the most obvious alternative, ie. the only other party likely to form a government instead, the Liberals. It’s a polarizing effect.

Anyway, on the numbers, given that we’re tied in spite of the abstention…let’s say strategy, imagine where our support might be if we’d been showing a little backbone…

I suggest you retract the “bigots” term… that hardly is the term to use to dispute Greg’s analysis with.

It seems to me that there’s some sort of brain deficiency going on with you. I mean, look at the way you interpret the past few months in Parliament… Dion Cowering.

Don’t you think there’s another possible interpretation?

Only bigots are incapable of seeing two sides of the same issue.