Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 Start giving brad wall french lessons and send him on down. One of the highest approval ratings and a warm and approachable fellow. Also only premier to have balanced books in spite of recessions and oil crashes. He is miles ahead of whats in ottawa. I would agree with Wall, myself. He seems to have done a pretty good job. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Not quite. They were accused of inappropriate use of postage by a parliamentary committee stacked with their political adversaries - in other words a kangaroo court. Contrast that to the vision of Dean Del Mastro, in leg irons and handcuffs, being led off to jail after being found guilty by a Canadian court with an independent judge - of election related fraud.. Contrast Del Mastro spending $20,000 of his own money with the NDP spending over a million bucks of taxpayer money, or, for that matter, the Liberals, prior to Harper, doling out fat contracts to advertising agencies for no work in exchange for them providing under the table help back to them at election time. Funny how Elections Canada never kicked up a fuss about that... Edited August 3, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 So at lest you understand the party you will vote for are crooks. Glad you made that clear. They're all crooks. We try to vote for the crooks who will screw us the least, and more importantly, screw up the country the least. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) If I vote at all it'll be for the NDP, because of the grotesque mismanagement and destruction of our fisheries at the hands of Liberals and Conservatives. The NDP are the only party that has talked about basing fisheries management on the coast rather than leaving it in Ottawa - 1500 miles from the nearest ocean. Just be aware that the NDPs interest will be in the welfare of the fish, not the fishermen. If there is every any sort of decision to be made that decision will come down on the side of the envornment, not you. The NDP care about the environment way, way, way more than those who profit (eek! That horrible word!) from KILLING fish and animals. For example, seal population growing and taking more and more fish? Well then, the only solution will be to cut back on human fisheries. Because you can be damn sure they won't sanction killing seals. Edited August 3, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 I'm undecided. I want a government that will switch our sources of energy from fossil fuels to nuclear. Given the unbridled opposition to nuclear by all three left wing parties, your only hope is that the Tories get in and there's a change at the top. There is no way the Liberals, NDP or Greens will ever support nuclear power. They want solar and wind. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
-1=e^ipi Posted August 3, 2015 Report Posted August 3, 2015 I don't want pizza parliaments where there's an election every two years How does a 'pizza parliament' imply an election every two years? where all the back room maneuvering gives tiny single-issue parties disproportionate power. How does giving a party representation proportional to its support giving it 'disproportionate power'? Is UKIP getting 13% of the vote and 1 seat 'proportionate power'? Reason Two. Energy I think cap and trade is moronic policy which increases the price of power, which damages the economy. Energy prices are going to go through the roof regardless of who is in the Federal government. The Ontario liberals will continue to make provincial energy prices skyrocket, Ontario+Quebec are making a cap-and-trade agreement with California, BC has a $30 per metric ton of CO2 emissions tax, Alberta has a $15 per metric ton CO2 emissions price and now has an NDP government, etc. Reason Three. Immigration The NDP and to a lesser extent, the Liberals, have promised to increase immigration and focus more on family reunification Fair point. Reason Four. Quebec I've rather enjoyed this brief interlude where the government of Canada wasn't primarily concerned with pleasing Quebec. I don't really want to go back to that again, which a Mulcair or Trudeau government promises. Both, for example, have promised that all new Supreme Court appointees will have to come from the 2% of Canadians (mostly Francophone) who are fluently bilingual. Why? To pander to Quebec, of course, and the hell with how second or third rate the new judges are. Fair point. Quote
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 Necessity of Democracy is a given. Stability is a facade. Here are some "stable" governments: North Korea, China, Saddam Hussein, Iran, Assad, Stalin, Putin. To have a country grow, you need an exchange of ideas, and you need new ideas. Stability is stagnation. Simplistic drivel. You're comparing rotted, corrupt dictatorships to a thriving democracy. You like instability? Go visit Greece or Italy, or, for that matter, Egypt or Israel. Are they thriving? Our of our great failings is the inability to recognize that all great achievements are the result of cooperation... No, actually they aren't. Elon Musk didn't get where he was by cooperation. Bill gates didn't build Microsoft through cooperation. Neither did Henry Ford. This is an incredibly wealthy society, and it didn't get there because of cooperation. It got there because hard charging individuals bulled their way ahead to create that wealth in the first place. When we eviscerate our Canadian institutions, whether research, or statistics, or the mail system, or yes, the Communications infrastructures, we are destroying what makes this country great to live in, These institutions are what foster the necessary cooperation to make the country grow, rather than stagnate and turn it into another ho-hum rat race This is the fundamental difference between Left and Right. The Left sees government as the primary institution responsible for the growth of the country and furthering social aims. The Right just wants the government to take care of the basics and provide a stable environment so that people can get on with their lives and business and industry can thrive. The problem for the Left is that government is incredibly inefficient at virtually everything it does. And it has no money other than what it takes from the citizens. The bigger the government, the more it takes, until you have bloated bureaucracy stifling growth and consuming ever growing amounts of people's money. No one on the Left ever wants to cut programs or departments or anything else about government, because all of them are doing things which can be said to be helping people in some way (why else were they created?). But every now and then government has to be pruned back or it will swallow us all. When that happens, some people inevitably squeal, but it's still absolutely necessary. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Keepitsimple Posted August 3, 2015 Report Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Except that the recorded, demonstrable facts prove otherwise. Harper often allows freedom to MP's, the others never do. You will of course ignore the readily available, public record of this. It's one of the things that I actually admire about the man - and one that all good leaders possess. Give MPs the freedom to express themselves and reach consensus behind the scenes.....but when all is said and done, the party takes a united stand......and I have no doubt that some of the "stands" are not completely to Harper's liking. But I have to agree, the droning talking points are frustrating. It would appear that Justin Trudeau either follows his advisors - or impetuously adopts a "my way or the highway" attitude. With the NDP trying desperately to shed its socialist tendencies, it would also appear that Tom Mulcair might be the most controlling of the three leaders. Edited August 3, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Stability - Dictatorships are very stable. If you think that stability is more important than representative governance, you and Stalin can agree on that point. There is no reason you can't have both stable government and democracy. Canada has proven that over the last hundred and fifty years. It's common for PR systems to create coalition governments. Most of the countries in Europe with PR systems have, on average, fewer changes of government than Canada. No, they actually don't, except for the Nordic countries, which are, or were until recently, in a homogenous class all their own. Energy - The high Canadian dollar, a direct result Harper's moronic focus on commodity-based economy (mainly energy), has already hollowed out the manufacturing sector. It will recover, regardless of the party that gains power, as the price of oil will not recover anytime soon. The high dollar is the result of having high exports. We're an export country. It wouldn't matter if we were selling tons of TVs and Cars instead of Oil. And Harper 'focusing' on energy seems to be a theme the Left has invented without any supporting evidence. Manufacturing has had problems with the dollar, true, but it's had problems in every western country. When was the last time you bought a manufactured product made in the UK or France or Spain? Nope. They're made in Vietnam, Mexico, China and India, where wages and energy are dirt cheap. I might add that it hasn't helped that the Liberals pursuit of 'green energy' has helped raise the cost of power in Ontario to the point it's double what it is in Michigan and other US jurisdictions. And it won't help that they and the federal Liberals and NDP want to put in place a national cap and trade program which will increase the cost of power even more. Funny how the Left never actually explains what Cap and Trade means. It means increasing the cost of energy, of electricity, of heating and gasoline. They don't like to say that openly, though or what impact that will have on industry. Immigration - Wow, you're gutsy. Lots of people associate statements like yours with closet racists. Only if they're drooling morons. Quebec - Zero credit can be given to Harper for the period of stability we've had where Quebec's separatist community has been subdued. Harper and Canada have both been lucky that this has occurred. They haven't pampered and sucked up to Quebec the way the Liberals and NDP have either. They haven't tailored government economic programs to Quebec and insisted every new appointee be fluently bilingual to please Quebec (which itself disdains bilingualism). Edited August 3, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 What colour is the sky on your planet? The Conservatives have more money because most of the wealthy support them. Because their policies primarily support the wealthy. See how that works? The facts, as always, say otherwise. The Conservatives have more money because their money has always come in the form of smaller donations from a very large donor base. The Liberals got by for years on very large donations from CEOs and other wealthy people at $25,000 a plate fund raisers. Chretien banned that to screw over Martin, and the Liberals have still not recovered. The NDP, of course, get most of their money from the unions, who involuntarily extract it from their members. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Some might, but for the most part, I don't think it would mater, when he wins his second majority this Fall, I doubt very much the Prime Minister (despite suggestions by pundits) will step down.......he'll only be 60 years young for the 2019 election, is in good health (lost a ton of weight over the last couple of months through diet and exercise) and still sees important work ahead. The desire for change comes upon every government after a time. People get tired of whoever is in charge, unless he's extremely personable, likeable and charismatic. Harper is none of those things. He's benefited from having a series of unlikeable and unappealing Liberal opponents to the point that Canadians are now seriously considering the NDP. He might squeak through this time, but it will definitely be the last. If the party doesn't get him out before the next election it will be hammered down to bare bones. Edited August 3, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 Well I guess I came under a different level of "crook" as you put it. They didn't put me in leg irons and handcuffs like your boy. I've been suspicious of that little scene since I caught it. Having lived in Ottawa for thirty years and been a news junkie all that time I've seen many scenes of accused killers and rapists and drug dealers and frauds and such coming into court. I can't offhand recall another video of someone being led in in leg irons and shackles. This is a member of parliament who was accused of spending too much of his own money on an election. Shackles and leg irons? Really? A perp walk? Since when do we do that? I'd like to know who arranged that an what his party affiliation is. I have a strong suspicion that he is a lifelong Liberal who notified the media to come and get a good look. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 Reason One is a bad joke considering that Harper's "stability" was based on turning Canada into a petrostate complete with an over-valued petrodollar that was killing manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec. Here we see the theme again, that Harper was bad because Canada was exporting lots of oil. It's like people think we should have closed down the oil fields and put huge subsidies into building TVs even if nobody wanted to buy them! We sell what people are willing to buy from us! That's it! That's all! Workers in China and India get a dollar a day to make these things, and the factories spew pollution into the air without fear of government sanction while paying way lower taxes! And yet this is somehow Harper's fault.... On elections: Harper is the one who is trying to change the way we do elections in Canada...i.e. Americanize our system with more corporate money and longer election cycles. There is no corporate money in Canadian elections. As for 'longer election cycles' people seem to ignore the fact the Tories took a huge weapon out of their arsenal and just gave it away! Deciding on the timing of elections has always been done by the government to maximize its own benefit. Often they even call elections when the opposition has just elected a new leader, not giving him time to settle in and organize. Or they call an election because they know an economic downturn is coming and want to get the election done first. Harper decided that was unfair - the opposition - and so changed it. So, family values includes making sure that immigrants aren't allowed to reunite families in Canada! I'm not a big 'family values' guy. If we're to have immigrants I want ones who earn lots of money here so they can pay taxes, not ones who barely scrape by on low incomes, and thus, pay no taxes while I subsidize their schooling and health care. Maybe the problem is not enough Canadians being bilingual then. Since courts work in two official languages, should any Supreme Court judges be hired who need interpreters? Maybe 2% of the population is fluently bilingual. Maybe. Most of them are from Quebec, or Francophones from a few parts of New Brunswick and eastern Ontario. What percentage of top flight lawyers in this country are fluently bilingual? Negligible, and outside of Quebec, eastern Ontario and New Brunswick, practically non-existent. We have enough idiots on the bench without screening out 99% of the legal minds in the country before we start the selection process. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
kimmy Posted August 3, 2015 Report Posted August 3, 2015 Ok, so hypothetically Harper wins a majority in the election, and after some short period of time he steps down, and our new Prime Minister is selected by Conservative delegates at a leadership convention in Tuktuyuktuk. And they come up with ... I dunno, let's say (trumpet flourish) Pierre Poilievre or (trumpet flourish) Lisa Raitt. Still happy? Or are you going to be like "heeeyy, I didn't want this politically correct bs, I thought we were getting Jason Kenney." -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 Jeezus Christos, all you have to do is listen to all Harper's donks repeating ridiculous talking points ad nauseum until you know even they know how stupid they sound, and you'd know that's they have zero freedom at all. And the Liberal and NDP MPs do? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 Yeah I'd like to see those "facts". Well, you can be pro choice or pro life as a Tory MP. You can be a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, or an opponent. You be in favour of gun control or against it. You can be in favour of multiculturalism or opposed. You have no such freedom as a Liberal or NDP MP. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted August 3, 2015 Report Posted August 3, 2015 I've been suspicious of that little scene since I caught it. Having lived in Ottawa for thirty years and been a news junkie all that time I've seen many scenes of accused killers and rapists and drug dealers and frauds and such coming into court. I can't offhand recall another video of someone being led in in leg irons and shackles. This is a member of parliament who was accused of spending too much of his own money on an election. Shackles and leg irons? Really? A perp walk? Since when do we do that? I'd like to know who arranged that an what his party affiliation is. I have a strong suspicion that he is a lifelong Liberal who notified the media to come and get a good look. Careful now, that paranoia stuff will get ya. Actually this is standard procedure for any offender being transported, regardless of the offense. And after all, isn't it your CPC boys who like to pride themselves on their "tough on crime" stance? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 3, 2015 Report Posted August 3, 2015 Well, you can be pro choice or pro life as a Tory MP. You can be a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, or an opponent. You be in favour of gun control or against it. You can be in favour of multiculturalism or opposed. You have no such freedom as a Liberal or NDP MP. Parties have policies. Just ask Mark Warawa how much "freedom" he had on his pro life ideas. Quote
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 Canadians would do well to examine the debacle that Ottawa has made of Canada's fisheries - Over forty years... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 It's a risk management life we live. Everyone needs to look out for their own best financial health. Ether way. And since both Trudeau and Mulcair want to raise my taxes, well... that certainly has an impact. As does the fact they've both announced a ream of expensive programs for which they have no funds available... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 How does a 'pizza parliament' imply an election every two years? Minority governments are inherently less stable than majority governments. The more parties you have in parliament the less likely you'll have a majority government. Rarely does a government in Canada get over 50% of the popular vote. How does giving a party representation proportional to its support giving it 'disproportionate power'? Is UKIP getting 13% of the vote and 1 seat 'proportionate power'? Party 1 has 34 seats in a 100 seat house. Party 2 is going to support them with their 15. Ah, but they're still short. Party 3 has 3% of the popular votes and thus 3 seats in the House. It's willing to support the coalition in exchange for its issue being pushed and supported. Even though 97% of the population either doesn't want it or doesn't care about it, the new government has to push that issue to gain those three final seats. See Israel, where the little religious parties manage to wield enormous power in their pizza parliament, getting laws passed which the majority of the population don't like. Energy prices are going to go through the roof regardless of who is in the Federal government. The Ontario liberals will continue to make provincial energy prices skyrocket, Ontario+Quebec are making a cap-and-trade agreement with California, BC has a $30 per metric ton of CO2 emissions tax, Alberta has a $15 per metric ton CO2 emissions price and now has an NDP government, etc. So is it better for us to make it nationwide and increase power and gas prices for everyone? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Ok, so hypothetically Harper wins a majority in the election, and after some short period of time he steps down, and our new Prime Minister is selected by Conservative delegates at a leadership convention in Tuktuyuktuk. And they come up with ... I dunno, let's say (trumpet flourish) Pierre Poilievre or (trumpet flourish) Lisa Raitt. Still happy? Or are you going to be like "heeeyy, I didn't want this politically correct bs, I thought we were getting Jason Kenney." -k I would not be happy, no. I wasn't all that happy when they chose Harper, to be honest. But I don't see how either could be much worse than Trudeau or the NDP. I'm no fan of Poilievre, who is now my MP, btw, but is his famous partisanship really worse than Trudeau? Recall that Trudeau has said that if he felt Canada shared Conservative values he would join the Quebec separatists and try to leave Canada. How do you get more partisan than that? Edited August 3, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 Careful now, that paranoia stuff will get ya. Actually this is standard procedure for any offender being transported, regardless of the offense. And after all, isn't it your CPC boys who like to pride themselves on their "tough on crime" stance? All I'm saying is I watch the news every night and I don't recall seeing it. And how did the media know he was being transported just then? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 3, 2015 Author Report Posted August 3, 2015 Parties have policies. Just ask Mark Warawa how much "freedom" he had on his pro life ideas. Well, he was free to express his opinion and to introduce a private members bill. He would not have been free to do either had he been a Liberal or NDP. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted August 3, 2015 Report Posted August 3, 2015 All I'm saying is I watch the news every night and I don't recall seeing it. And how did the media know he was being transported just then? C'mon now. How would the press NOT know a former Harper front bencher, ethics committee chair, was being transported to jail after his conviction. You must have just not watched that night. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.