Conservatives

[idealisttotheend]

Thank you to August for rescuing the thread.

You are making a fundamental error though, you said that the US spends more on health with lower tax rates. You failed to consider however that the majority of US health costs are not paid through taxes.

This is why when companies choose between Michagan and Ontario, they find Ontario more competitive because even with the higher tax rates it's cheaper to do buisness in Ontario when health insurance premiums are factored in. This of course does not apply to companies that don't pay their employees health insurance premiums, these companies prefer "Right to work" (i.e. "no right to a union") states that Hjarmar is so fond of.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Takeanumber stop smoking up marijauna before you post on this forum seriously.

Can you qoute any of us on anything bigoted no you know why because your an idiot.

Your the one that said that Harper's hidden agenda was the following

-force us all to wear blue

-the only sex position allowed is missionary

-we all have to drive blue cars

-we have to go to church on sundays

Yeah and before Trudeau came in this country had so many concentration camps and whatnot. Holy crap, we were so evil, I'm so glad that you left wing nuts came in to enlighten us all on how to do acid and smoke weed.

So get off the pot, and maybe even the acid

By the way when are you gonna set up those concentration camps for people that are right of centre, I mean are you gonna have gas chambers or what. Oh we can have a field day at the veteran's hall, I hear their against gay marriage, and are for traditional values. Those bigots got whats comin to them right takeanumber.

I can't believe that I got my ass chewed off for insulting the lefties, yet when some dumbass says that anybody right of centre is responsible for the holocaust they are still allowed to post.

[August1991]

And AF, lay off the Scotch (or whatever it is that makes you twitch).

Idealist:

You are making a fundamental error though, you said that the US spends more on health with lower tax rates.

The US government spends more per capita than does the Canadian government. Altogether, the American health sector is larger than ours. One reason is because of the many foreigners who use it.

But I agree with you. Insurance schemes have many problems and health insurance in particular. IMO, it makes sense for health insurance to be State managed. (A similar argument can be made for car insurance too.)

But no one would suggest that we have State car garages. Only the insurance scheme should be State-operated.

As to the premiums, that's partly an equity (fairness) issue but I don't see why people who smoke or eat fast food, shouldn't pay higher premiums. They're more likely to require expensive health care.

[Stoker]

But no one would suggest that we have State car garages. Only the insurance scheme should be State-operated

Exactly.........all that maters is that a person can go get treated if they are sick, and well they are doing that, the taxpayer's dollar is not wasted.

[maplesyrup]

Harper's defence platform a nice piece of politicking

[Argus]

The denegrading language about women, immigrants, jews and homosexuals are also very similar to what has been said repeatedly by aptly named 'small c conservatives'.

I've asked you twice before to supply the offensive quotes you keep snivelling about, and you've been entirely silent. I can only suppose you looked, found out there were none, and then lacked the manhood to apologise. Why don't you tell me what denigrating language I've used about Jews, immigrants, homosexuals or women, big mouth?

I think why the main offenders, Argus, August and AllianceF are getting so mad is because I'm not supposed to actually reveal how true conservative logic works.

Well, I don't know about them, but I've gotten mature enough not to consider a flake like you important enough to cause me any anger. I do dislike it that you make up lies about me, though. But I guess dishonesty is probably something you require in order to cling to your childish beliefs.

[Stoker]

SO maplesyrup, under Mad Jack, the entire world will lay down their arms so they can live in a worker's paradise, hence we won't need an Armed Forces?

I'll answer a few of the writers points:

chastizing the Liberals for years of neglect and avoiding any comment that might be construed as bellicose.

If you have seen the press conference, you would have noticed that Harper said "neglect" for the last thirty years, which also implies the "neglect" done to the CF under Mulrony and Campbell.

This evocation of a Canadian hero -- a Liberal hero, too, and a champion of peace -- was a brilliant stroke.

Tis the truth, and Louis St. Laruent was a Liberal also.....

if we let our own military atrophy, said Harper, we lose control of our own future to our better-armed neighbour.

Like the old saying goes: "Every nation has an Army, their's or somebody elses".......

How would NDP or Liberal voters like it if another terror attack(or two) was launched from Canada onto the United States......do you really think that if the United States contiues to see Canada as a "hot bed for terrorists" and that our government refuses to address the problem, that the United States won't take action?

I noticed that the NDP would like us to pull out of NATO and NORAD, but do they understand what neutrality costs? Go ask Sweden....even that is a bad example, since Sweden does not rely on world wide trade as much as Canada.......

committing to an 80,000-strong force at some future date -- but nothing he said yesterday suggests he would embark on a radically different course.

Thats not a "radically different course".......being able to start to meet the requirments of ones own White Paper?

Indeed, his plan to enlarge the army is also an indirect government job creation scheme and a regional development tool

I'm sure that was Harpers real plan Please, somebody, get me my Tin-foil hat

With that said, is it a bad thing that close to 30k new full time jobs will be created? Not to mention thousands of new part time jobs in the Reserves.....

The Conservative leader has recently been saying he would have "morally supported" the U.S.-led war effort, but the depleted state of Canada's military ruled out sending troops.

I don't see any problems here......at least he's being honest....we couldn't have sent a significant force to Iraq if we wanted to {See 30 years of neglect}, at most, the ships in the gulf conducting opp Apollo would now have been in the gulf "fighting Iraq", added to perhaps a few transport and Patrol aircraft, and maybe a handful of

JTF-2........at most are support would have translated in more of gestures.....but still.......do you think the Mad Cow scare or SARS would have been as bad last year?

We can assume that culture, the CBC, any sponsorship-like spending will be given short shrift in a Conservative regime, but that magnitude of savings doesn't begin to cover the new military expenditures.

As I said before, the UK spends about three times per head more then we do on defence.......and they still have Healthcare.....

Canada's military role needs to change in a changing world and a future army may not require the same numbers, or the heavy tanks proposed by Harper.

Yes, Canada knows something that the rest of NATO doesn't

His vision won't impress the many Canadians who privately agree with former prime minister Jean Chretien. He liked to say that he never once met a general who told him that he had enough money.

I hope that Canada doesn't need a bloody nose before we start pulling our own weight on defence.....

[takeanumber]

@Argus/August: sorry for the Eatme remark. I shouldn't be pandering to personal attacks.

From Argus to Take (This thread, May 30):

I hate to tell you this, my friend, but that glittery piece of paper protects no one and no thing without the will of the majority. If the majority wants to put Jews in ovens that constitution will get chucked right out the window.

First personal attack from Willy(This thread, May 30):

Shame takeanumber. Grow up.

From Argus (This thread, May 30):

Why do I doubt you get out to many parties? :-) Such a cliched view of life you have here. You know who I've heard the most racist, bigoted things from? Immigrants. Oh no! African guys, particularly Ethiopians and Eritrians tell me they simply cannot believe why we keep letting dirty Muslims into Canada, that they're thieves and liars, and religious crazies. They don't think much of Carribean blacks either, who they describe as lazy criminals. Meanwhile, Muslims make veiled and sometimes not very veiled references to how the Jews run everything in Canada, and can't understand why we put up with it. Don't we know that Jews hate us? As for gays - brother, you don't wanna know what either group thinks of them.

Willy on Citizenship (Intergenerational)

Who told you it was your right to receive the benefits a province like Alberta provides.

Argus on 'my generation' (intergenerational).

Well, at least your fulfilling the cliche of your generation being a bunch of bloody whiners.

Argus, next post, on 'my generation' (interngeneration)

The lifestyle of your generation - presuming you ever get off your asses and do anything, is going to be better than the one the boomers enjoyed.

Takeanumber, to Argus (intergenerational)

QUOTE 

Well, at least your fulfilling the cliche of your generation being a bunch of bloody whiners. 

Eat me.

Anti-French sentiment, Argus (Billingualism)

QUOTE 

So you believe what is right for society is for Quebec to rule Canada, for all the major players in the public service to be Quebecers, and all the policies, programs and legislation to be decided by them?

More from the same thread. There are more blanket statements with a similar undercurrent.

Ever read a Quebec newspaper? Even the English ones act as if Canada is a seperate country. All their news, all their interest is focused on Quebec. They don't care what happens in Toronto or St. Johns or Vancouver unless it affects them.

Argus on Immigration (Immigration thread) May 22

I don't like the flood of immigration which has changed the Canada I knew

Another one, same post.

With so many immigrants coming so fast we're seeing huge communities of foreigners who never have to learn our ways or even our language. I'm not talking about the little italys of the past. I'm talking communities in the hundreds of thousands with their own malls, newspapers, tv and radio stations, businesses, etc. We're told they're Canadians, but in reality, they've never been to Canada!

In the same post, Argus writes:

I don't think as much of so many foreign people who seem to violently inclined, so intolerant, bigoted, sexist, biased, warlike, and fanatically religious

This statement is somehow supposed by tempered by the next:

I don't mind if some of them come here, blend into our communities, and learn to become like us. I do mind that there are so many they can retain their old cultures and build bigger communities year after year.

Where is the soul of Canada when the foreign born outnumber us and are determined to keep their foreign cultures and value systems?

Hiljamer (May 23) same thread:

I now think that racial profiling has to become part of our immigration policy.

Argus, on Muslims (ibid.)

It's true that Muslims concern me more than any other group. It's not merely the cultural baggage they bring with them either. It's the harshness of that culture and how it seems so completely opposed to our secular, tolerant society. I find their treatment of women disturbing, and the fact they back up that treatment by saying it's how God wants them to act means it's very difficult to bring change. In addition, where such studies have been made they show a troubling trend among Muslim immigrants to NOT adapt at all to their new country.

Argus, on rights (ibid.)

If we start trying to give all foreigners the "benefit" of our Charter of Rights we'll make the lawyers rich and bankrupt the system.

Argus, generalizing immigrants (ibid.)

We should only bring the best in to join us. Drug dealers? Murderers? Torturers? Terrorists and their supporters? Why are we letting these people come here and call themselves Canadians??! 

Here's August responding to Argus (good job!)

Oh, I see. It seems really that you don't like Chinese and Muslims.

Why didn't you start a thread on that. I thought we were discussing the principle of immigration to Canada.

Argus (Ibid)

Actually, there are a lot of things admirable about the Chinese, particularly their attachment to family and their interest in education. But I think when they outnumber Canadians there's a problem.

(emphasis added by me).

Here's Argus (Ibid), anticipating how his Chinese statement should be defended, in a way that's classic:

One of the problems one finds in trying to discuss issues of dissaproval with immigration is reactionary, knee-jerk people who immediately start screaming about racist motivations. I don't think you really have any interest in discussing immigration. That would involve actually discussing the issues raised rather than attacking the person who raised them.

And another....

be Chinese and Arabic. Now I don't think that's so, at least not in that time line. But that IS my concern. Their numbers are rising too fast.

And another....

Because this is OUR country. We built it into something great while they were, by and large, building sh*tholes of violence, poverty,misery, hatred, ignorance and religious extremism with their "older more diverse cultures". And I don't want people who subscribe to those failed cultures to swamp ours.

And another....

I don't want it to happen. Because that would indicate that our present fairly sophisticated culture had been swamped by people from less sophisticated but more populous cultures.

Argus....again, trying to defend his previous statements:

Would you care to show me anywhere I implied that I don't like Chinese people? I like them fine, just not as well as I like Canadian people. And I don't think it's very good for Canada when foreigners of any kind outnumber those who were born here.

Another one, this time we're going economic:

Immigrants without the requisite language and job skills to succeed in our job environment are not going to be providing much help in paying our pensions.

A repeat of the 2000 election statements. (Argus, Ibid)

Well you know, they call it the Asian Invasion..... but seriously, have you looked at a public school class lately in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver? When I saw a public school class on TV the other night from Vancouver I'd say about 17 of the 20 odd kids there were Asians.

Argus, expressing another classic conservative mantra.

However, I do think people who are born and grow up here have more right to our help, particularly economic, than people who stepped off the boat last week. The entire justification for accepting immigrants is economic. In those terms, if an immigrant comes here and becomes a drain on the community then we ought to ship them back where they came from.

Takeanumber, on relative rates of return. (This should have been prefaced with a discussion of tax wedges and ingrained culture in the provinces of NB and Sask.) Yeh, it was a mean thing to say, and I feel aweful for disparaging my own people. I still think it's true though, por lo generale.

10 grand spent on a new immigrant will return WAY MORE money in the long run than 10 grand dropped on White people in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick.

More by Argus (Ibid)

They can bring their immediate families with them. As for grandparents, uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters - they can visit, but I have no interst in bringing them to Canada unless they are skilled enough to make their own way here, and determined to fit into Canadian life.

Argus showing off his Academe, combined with personal attack (again).

Apparently you don't know what a cite is in this medium. Giving me the name of a book or a study is not a cite. You think I'm going to go to the library and read through it for whatever particular passage you're referring to?

I will take your nonsensical ranting as nothing but uneducated personal opinon.

Mongomery Burns (This thread)

I felt responsibility slipping away like panties off a whore.

Alright, so I'm going to back down from my blanket assertion that all small c conservatives window dress their true feelings. I now realize that there does in fact exist a decent small c conservative.

However, I am going to continue to attack positions (not people) who:

Use patriotism (arguements along the lines of "who are you to <<blank>> when our veterans died for <<blank>> not for your <<blank>>.), to bolster their positions.

Use Jonesism (arguements along the lines of "robbing Peter to pay Pierre", resentment of hearing French, resentment of any program designed to improve the use of French, and the spread of French influence in general.), to bolster their positions.

Use xenophobia (arguements along the lines of "preservation of 'Canadian' culture, accuse others of being bigots for pointing out their own bigotry.)

Use blind populism to justify policy (arguements along the lines that jews/homosexuals can be sent to the ovens if the majority decides to do so, or any other violation of the Charter.)

Misuse market economics to justify positions (arguements such as 'the market doesn't apply to us', markets don't fail.)

I won't be egged on by personal attacks. I'm not going to use personal attacks from now on.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

[takeanumber]

WRT Taxation policy.

Taxation policy is a powerful tool that can be used to cause all sorts of change.

I believe that tax incentives are much more powerful than government grant and subsidies in achieving objectives. (The Carrot is superior to the Stick).

Here are some ideas:

1. Tax seasonal industries that abuse EI for labour hoarding. (If you're from Atlantic Canada, and don't know what labour hoarding is, you need to PM me so I can explain the effects of EI on the Maritime economy.)

2. Give tax breaks for companies conducting research in Saskatechewan, Northern Ontario, Eastern Quebec, and Altantic Canada.

3. Give a 1 year tax moratorium for all first time entrepreuneurs, phasing in the taxes up to the correct amount over 5 years. (This would include a 65yo who is starting their first business.)

4. Give plastics companies in Alberta a break on taxes.

5. Introduce negative income tax to eliminate the 'traps'.

6. Work in tax incentives into a national Kyoto carbon credit market.

[willy]

Who told you it was your right to receive the benefits a province like Alberta provides. At UofC you have access to amazing sports facilities, state of the art technology, and a wide variety of programs

takeanumber, you seem to have taken this as a personal attack so I will expand on it.

I was born in Alberta, and had the privilege to have medical care when I fell off my skateboard, or fell ill. I was provided education in French. The school system gave me scholarship money every year I was in high school. The schools I went to had excellent teachers who took us skiing, to museums, and had foreign exchanges. I had no problem getting my first job and even from BC I still do work in Alberta. All this said, I could have been born in Mexico and had none of these things.

Why was I so lucky? I don't know, but I do want to work to protect these opportunities for those behind me and recognize that we should be thankful to be in such a great place. This is the right I was referring to. None of these thing was I derserving of, I was lucky to be born in Alberta.

This was no personal attack on you. The grow up remark was, I will try and stay to ideas and policy arguments but when you make blanket statements that are false and mean spirited I took it personally.

As for tax incentives, as motivators over direct subsidy, I would agree. Taxing and subsidizing takes bureaucracy to collect and distribute, incentives are more efficient as it really is the lack of action for compling to a direction.

[Black Dog]

Hell, man, there is lots of money if you knock down some of the wasteful spending.

Sure. But I find it curious that people who make a point of saying how some problems (like those in health care, for instance) cannot be fixed by throwing money at them. When it comes to the military, though, the Harpers of the world can't start shovelling out cash fast enough.

To me, even if the money is there (and I still wanna know how Harper's tax cuts will help the bottom line) it's a question of priorities. Do we need a bigger military? I'd settle for a well-paid and well equipped force that can do the job of defending this countries borders and, if we so choose, to participate in global peacekeeping efforts. Not the bloated U.S. proxy force that Harper dreams of.

So a tax cut is realistic, if wasteful spending is curbed which under the cons I believe would happen

People who talk of tax cuts as a good thing by definition are missing the point. Tax cuts for who? And how much? What about corporate taxes?

The Conservatives also believe in asking the people, rather than just unilaterally dictating positions to Canadians, on social issues (i.e. the definition of marriage). Nothing is wrong with asking the people how they feel on those kinds of issues with referendums, which should be binding in their decision making regardless of what view is supported by all voting Canadians.

Actually the Cons want a free vote on gay marriage, not a national referendum. However, we know where the Cons really stand on social issues (for example: Like the Tory health critic who wants new rules requiring women to obtain "third party counselling" before getting an abortion) and we know how those "free" votes would go.

It's not about "activist courts" (even though, in the case of the recent gay marriage decision, the courts where well within the mandate given to them by Parliment to make decisions on the state of the law). It's about using the rhetoric of democracy to push policies that most people would find abhorrant.

[Argus]

takanumber I'm not going to waste my time responding point by point to your nonsensically long effort to pull sentences out of context and then desperately stretch what they say into somehow meeting your statement they were anti french or anti immigrant. They weren't. You have no judgement on such things and no honesty to admit you're wrong. And I'm not going to waste my time on you further.

[Argus]

Hell, man, there is lots of money if you knock down some of the wasteful spending.

Sure. But I find it curious that people who make a point of saying how some problems (like those in health care, for instance) cannot be fixed by throwing money at them. When it comes to the military, though, the Harpers of the world can't start shovelling out cash fast enough.

That's not really fair. No one has ever suggested that money isn't the solution for anything.. With health care what we're looking at is a system with costs escalating so fast they'll soon completely take over provincial budgets. Just look at Ontario, where under a tory government commited to cost cutting wherever possible health care costs rose from 32% to 45% or so of their budget in ten years. At the same time waiting lengths doubled. Sorry, but that's not something you can solve with just money. You need systemic changes before it drives us into bankruptcy.

The miltary is somewhat different in that it has seen a generation of neglect and cutbacks. You can look at the old, worn out equipment and immediately show that money would help. You can look at the lack of people to provide peacekeeping forces and say that money would help. Still, I agree that here too the problem is not just lack of money. We've used military purchasing as a job creation program for a generation, paying far more for equipment than we'd otherwise have to. That has robbed the military of much-needed money. There is too much bureaucracy at DND, and rank inflation has given us too many senior officers for the number of enlisted ranks we have. We also have too many bases.

To me, even if the money is there (and I still wanna know how Harper's tax cuts will help the bottom line) it's a question of priorities. Do we need a bigger military? I'd settle for a well-paid and well equipped force that can do the job of defending this countries borders and, if we so choose, to participate in global peacekeeping efforts. Not the bloated U.S. proxy force that Harper dreams of.

Well, the fact is the present force can do none of what you want. As for a "bloated" force, his aim is to bring the military back up to the size it was when Chretien took over, which is hardly bloated. Even that would be half the size it was during Trudeau's time. Your "US proxy force" comment appears to be simple anti-Americanism.

It's not about "activist courts" (even though, in the case of the recent gay marriage decision, the courts where well within the mandate given to them by Parliment to make decisions on the state of the law). It's about using the rhetoric of democracy to push policies that most people would find abhorrant.

Would you care to name a few of these policies most people would find abohorant? Most people appear to be against same-sex marriage, for example.

[Stoker]

To me, even if the money is there (and I still wanna know how Harper's tax cuts will help the bottom line) it's a question of priorities. Do we need a bigger military? I'd settle for a well-paid and well equipped force that can do the job of defending this countries borders and, if we so choose, to participate in global peacekeeping efforts. Not the bloated U.S. proxy force that Harper dreams of.

Of course we need a bigger Armed Forces, that is, if we want to still play a part on the world stage......and since the majority of our economy depends on world trade, if we want the current (or better) level of econmy we have, we are going to have to defend it.

Even though the majority of our trade is done with the United States, we must also take into account two things:

1. There is no denying that the United States is the worlds only Superpower and we live next door. Also, we are lucky that are largest trading partner is "friendly" with us and they live next to us.

So whether you like the Americans or not, they are our largest trading partner and they live next to us. Does it not make sense to "bend" a little to their will on some issues so our "will" will be given notice?(Not to mention the wars that we fought alongside for were for a good cause)

I for one wake-up in cold sweats over what are realtions would be like with the United States if Mad Jack and the NDP got into power.

2. Even though most of our exports just go "across the border", that is not always their final destination. So is it not prudent to make sure that we can protect all forms of trade going into and out our country?

Well, the fact is the present force can do none of what you want. As for a "bloated" force, his aim is to bring the military back up to the size it was when Chretien took over, which is hardly bloated. Even that would be half the size it was during Trudeau's time. Your "US proxy force" comment appears to be simple anti-Americanism.

Exactly, but of course, bringing our nations forces to par with those of the War mongering nation of Australia and the horrable Viking nation of Norway has got to be a bloated armed forces

Still, I agree that here too the problem is not just lack of money. We've used military purchasing as a job creation program for a generation, paying far more for equipment than we'd otherwise have to. That has robbed the military of much-needed money. There is too much bureaucracy at DND, and rank inflation has given us too many senior officers for the number of enlisted ranks we have. We also have too many bases.

This is also true, and I'm sure would be addressed, but they need some money first to prevent total failure. I agree they do need to go through DND with a fine tooth comb.

WRT to the job creation program, I wonder if the Liberals do stay in power, will we see the less qualified Sikorsky helicopter choosen to replace the Sea King, because a major supplier for the Sikorsky bird is in David Pratts riding

[takeanumber]

takanumber I'm not going to waste my time responding point by point to your nonsensically long effort to pull sentences out of context and then desperately stretch what they say into somehow meeting your statement they were anti french or anti immigrant. They weren't. You have no judgement on such things and no honesty to admit you're wrong. And I'm not going to waste my time on you further.

Well, you asked for the quotes, I delivered.

I was careful to select the quotes that were in context.

They're your words,

regards,

Takeanumber.

I don't favour blanket tax cuts. If there are tax cuts to be made, then they should be used as incentives for future objectives.

For instance,

1.tax credits for cutting emmissions.

2.Tax credits for the armed forces. (One way to increase their wages would be to exclude them from taxes.) [if you're fighting for this country, maybe you're doing your duty as a citizen and deserve to be excluded from taxes?]

3. Increased tax credits for people with kids.

4. Increased tax credits for single mothers/fathers. (Might reduce abortions if they got better support.)

So, those are just my ideas on how tax policy can be used as a carrot to effect change.

[August1991]

I'll insert this here to TakeNumber. I read through your Argus rant. Quite something! War Room type of stuff.

Taxation policy is a powerful tool that can be used to cause all sorts of change.

We have exactly what you are proposing now. It's called the federal budget. It has all kinds of various taxes and subsidies inserted for various reasons.

Of course, you would probably say that the incentives are all wrong.

And I would answer, what makes you think taxes are set by God? As soon as God (i.e. you) tried to design a "good" tax system, He (you) would immediately be subject to all kinds of lobbying - and we'd be back where we are now.

That doesn't mean that I think our democracy is bad and we should change it. My point is the same criticism of socialists - they want socialism as long as they get to be the one making decisions. It doesn't work that way.

The world has too many (and has had too many) "system builders". You cannot take people for granted. They will outsmart you every time.

[takeanumber]

Thx for the primer on the Federal Budget August.

I don't think we have what I'm proposing now. I don't see why you'd be so hostile towards the proposal.

Some of the current incentives (labour hoarding) are wrong. If you want to explain to me why labour hoarding incentives are right, please explain why so.

I never said I was God, nor did I imply it.

Lobbying? True. For more on how the Federal Budget is put together, please refer to "Governing From The Centre", Savoie, 2001, Chapter 6, "Let There Be No Light" is especially relevant.

When it comes to socialism, I have one stance: it denies market forces. And any system that ignores market forces is one condemed to failure.

Apparently the world does have too many 'system builders', probably because too many people self-style themselves as such.

Now really August, you must stop these personal attacks. The whole "Quite something! War Room type of stuff" and implying that I'm a socialist is really quite too much. Moreover, I suspect I know quite a bit more about the history of budget making than the average citizen, so I'd appreciate a reduction in your sarcasm.

Regards,

takeanumber.

[maplesyrup]

Abortion controversy eclipses good poll news for Conservatives

Abortion controversy eclipses good poll news for Conservatives

 

Martin O'Hanlon

The Canadian Press

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

An old ghost has returned to haunt the Conservative campaign, while Prime Minister Paul Martin wrestles with a new demon threatening to dash his election hopes.

On a day when the Tories should have been turning political cartwheels over a Liberal slide in the polls, leader Stephen Harper was on the defensive Tuesday over comments by one of his MPs.

Rob Merrifield, the Conservative health critic, said women seeking abortions should get third-party counselling. That prompted outrage from pro-choice activists who oppose any potential obstacles to abortion access.

Is this the election of gaffes?

[maplesyrup]

Harper's French fact

Harper's obvious contempt for Martin shows through every word he says. Harper is enjoying Martin's problem with the Bloc Québécois and obviously prefers the Bloc winning Quebec seats over the Liberals. But English Canadians are not happy to see a growing Bloc and would prefer having Liberals win those seats.

In this delicate game of balances Harper has to tread very carefully. If not careful he can help the Martin Liberals out by talking of minority government. There are enough Canadians out there who will vote Liberal to stop a Harper minority. They fear Harper even though they don't see him as a bogeyman; his party and the Scott Reids of this world do scare Canadian voters.

National unity, minority rights and official languages are not really Harper's game. They will gain him no votes in Quebec and can and will scare off fair-minded voters in English Canada. That in sum is Harper's French fact and he's stuck with it.

[Black Dog]

With health care what we're looking at is a system with costs escalating so fast they'll soon completely take over provincial budgets.

But why are costs escalating? Much of the blame is being pinned on the public system when, in truth, health crae costs are rising across the industrialized world. An aging population, expensive new technologies, infrastructure and perscription drug costs play a role. There's certainly nothing to indicate that that Medicare is inherently unsustainable. As for how much provinces are spending, there's been little real change in the the amount provinces are spending on health care as a percentage of GDP over the past decade.

The miltary is somewhat different in that it has seen a generation of neglect and cutbacks. You can look at the old, worn out equipment and immediately show that money would help.

So we need to modernize ou rmilitary, bring it up to snuff. But why is it necessary to double its sixe?

Would you care to name a few of these policies most people would find abohorant? Most people appear to be against same-sex marriage, for example.

The public seems evenly split on same sex marriage, but I expect much of that is due to the incessant fear -mongering from its opponnents. But look at the Cons' views on abortion. Harper claims its a non-issue, but scratch the surface (like his health critics comments yesterday) and you see a decidely anti-abortion stance, despite the fact that more than 70 per cent of Canadians suppport a women's right to choose. We're probably not going to go there, but knowing the influence religious social conservatives have on the Cons is enough to give me pause.

Of course we need a bigger Armed Forces, that is, if we want to still play a part on the world stage......and since the majority of our economy depends on world trade, if we want the current (or better) level of econmy we have, we are going to have to defend it.

So its purely ego-drive, then? Trade has little to do with "being a player" and more to do with what we have to offer. The ability to project military might and a strong economy are not connected. Look at some of the big economic success stories of the past decades (Ireland, for instance) how many are chatracterized by a large armed forces?

So whether you like the Americans or not, they are our largest trading partner and they live next to us. Does it not make sense to "bend" a little to their will on some issues so our "will" will be given notice?(Not to mention the wars that we fought alongside for were for a good cause)

Remember what I said about "U.S. proxy force"? That's what this boils down to. If that had been a consideration, we'd be mired in Iraq right now. No, the U.S. can manage its military afffairs without us. We should focus on defending our borders and oceans from incursion.

Even though most of our exports just go "across the border", that is not always their final destination. So is it not prudent to make sure that we can protect all forms of trade going into and out our country?

We don't now?

Exactly, but of course, bringing our nations forces to par with those of the War mongering nation of Australia and the horrable Viking nation of Norway has got to be a bloated armed forces

Again, there's no argument here beyond the childish notion that in order to be significant we have to match toys with the big kids. We have a top-heavy, underpaid armed forces with poor equipment and a ill-defined role. Simply doubling the size of the forces won';t address the main problems.

[Argus]

Abortion controversy eclipses good poll news for Conservatives

 

Liberals in the media may try to make something of this but it's going nowhere. Harper has already said he would not be making any laws or holding any referendums on abortion. Case closed. No story - unless you're a desperate Liberal.

[Michael Hardner]

Harper has already said he would not be making any laws or holding any referendums on abortion. Case closed.

It's not 'case closed' for millions of Canadians who don't know Harper and don't trust him yet. Layton has stated that his future budgets will be balanced - is that 'case closed' for Canadians ?

I doubt it.

[takeanumber]

I don't trust any of them to keep their words.

No matter how much Layton behaves moderate, or Harper moderate, or Martin sorry (or mad as hell), I don't trust any of them.

The outbursts representing 'personal opinion' eminating from the COR-Reform-Alliance wing of the Conservative party should be of concern to Canadians. Why? Because their party doesn't have a policy yet, hasn't had a policy convention, so what is Harper talking about when he says members of his wing arn't speaking for the party policy.

The victorious COR-Reform-Alliance wing of the Conservative party is going to monopolize the policy creation convention in the fall.

So yeh, it's a concern.

[Sully]

But why are costs escalating? Much of the blame is being pinned on the public system when, in truth, health crae costs are rising across the industrialized world. An aging population, expensive new technologies, infrastructure and perscription drug costs play a role. There's certainly nothing to indicate that that Medicare is inherently unsustainable. As for how much provinces are spending, there's been little real change in the the amount provinces are spending on health care as a percentage of GDP over the past decade.

Costs are escalating because no party has the balls to try reform the system and understand the problems. No one wants to take the issue head on and deal with it directly because that might upset some people. Unfortunately all the promises of increasing health spending means nothing, the money will be swallowed up into a bottomless pit. The health care system is on the road to collapse if it is not fundamentally reformed now, not later. I know here in BC under the NDP upwards of 73 cents of every dollar earmarked for health care in the province went to paying wages and benefits of health care workers, now under the Liberals that has been scaled back. Maybe the govt. should provide tax breaks or something along those lines for health care workers in exchange for lower wages and beenfits. There obviously is not a simple solution but its time we try to implement some of the reforms that have been presented in those reports the govt. commissioned, what a waste of money if they keep collecting dust on the shelves.

So we need to modernize ou rmilitary, bring it up to snuff. But why is it necessary to double its sixe?

Yes you are right the equipment has to be immmediately modernized, I mean I was quite embarassed to see our troops in Afghanistan wearing camoflauge that was to be used in forests, not the deserts.

Secondly the size of the military would not be doubled a jump from 53,200 to 80,000 is a 50% gain not 100% gain like you implied. And within the first year the military would increase to 65,000 personnel.

The public seems evenly split on same sex marriage, but I expect much of that is due to the incessant fear -mongering from its opponnents. But look at the Cons' views on abortion. Harper claims its a non-issue, but scratch the surface (like his health critics comments yesterday) and you see a decidely anti-abortion stance, despite the fact that more than 70 per cent of Canadians suppport a women's right to choose. We're probably not going to go there, but knowing the influence religious social conservatives have on the Cons is enough to give me pause.

Where is the fear mongering that is going on? Please provide examples.

I see quite the opposite in fact. I see headlines in papers promoting the issue, I see gay magazines on the shelves, there are gay bars in most decent size towns, I see gay pride parades in the streets. Therefore I am to assume that gay people have many rights. There are no fear mongering tactics that maybe a few would engage in, stopping these people from exercising their rights.

Please provide your definintion of fear mongering BD, cause right now your definition seems to be anything said or done by anyone who does not believe in gay marriage or anyone who does not share your view?

Yes many conservative people are largely supportive of anti-abortion. Whats your point, you are on either one side or the other with this issue. The only people who have a problem with this view are the pro-choice people, each viewpoint is valid, only each other eyes do we consider the other side whacko.

Remember what I said about "U.S. proxy force"? That's what this boils down to. If that had been a consideration, we'd be mired in Iraq right now. No, the U.S. can manage its military afffairs without us. We should focus on defending our borders and oceans from incursion.

Well the conservatives definitely have the best understanding of the role of military and its capabilities. With that being said they also knew that they could not contribute any forces to the operations, but could back the US in their fight with Saddam. As for Canada waiting and going the UN route, we have bypassed it before with Kosovo.

We are no angels remember that, we pride ourselves a little too much on being enlightened when its come to warfare. I do not think thats the best thing to do when our neighbour to the south does all the dirty work takes all the responsibility and still would protect us even when we have a large contingent of Canadians that bad mouth them. We are in the safest part of the world and why, because of the US. (And Yes the US is anything but an angel, we all know that, but I am glad we live next to them)

Again, there's no argument here beyond the childish notion that in order to be significant we have to match toys with the big kids. We have a top-heavy, underpaid armed forces with poor equipment and a ill-defined role. Simply doubling the size of the forces won';t address the main problems.

Wow I hear all the time that the left love to make comparisons of health care spending to other countries, to promote their views. Why is that ok, its comparing apples to oranges more so than with military issue, which right leaning people have more of an issue with. I do agree with you on the top heavy military, but we definitely need a broader role than just policing the world.

[takeanumber]

Superior points Sully.

To expand upon the Armed Forces points: there are severe problems with culture in the armed forces.

We have over 100 generals in this country, which I think is just insane.

Recruitment.

We can't get the people in.

Also, the traditional recruits from 1975-1995 were by and large, white folk from the high unemployment regions. There's nothing wrong with this fact.

I grew up with exactly one Aboriginal officer on base. It was discraceful how he was treated.

It's no wonder why there arn't more aboriginals in the armed forces.

Moreover, getting other minorities into the armed forces is a challenge for similar reasons.

I mean, unless you grew up on a base, I don't think you can really appreciate what it's like, nor the types of barriers that a visible minority would face.

(And IT IS important to racial minorities into the armed forces, given all the places we're sending them these days.)

It's not just the crappy pay that serves as a barrier.

It's the general treatment by officers.

It's the general treatment of minorities by officers and soldiers.

It's the general image of the armed forces.

Just throwing money at the Armed Forces isn't going to solve the problem. There are fundamental, cultural problems in the Armed Forces that really need to be reformed. Higher wages arn't going to cut it.

(BTW: When the Liberals gave soldiers a raise back in 1997, it was clawed back instantly by increasing the rent on their PMQ's, which had been going steadily up and up. Soldiers do NOT, and HAVE NEVER (since 1980 at least) gotten free food and free shelter.

In conclusion, Conservatives might talk big on defence -- new helicopters are very welcome, but there are bigger issues.

The Federal Liberals are just vile when it comes to the Armed Forces.

The NDP are just idiots on the topic of defence...all this talk of 'redifining roles' etc..., just screw off. What does some upper-class NDP Toronto elite know about the armed forces?