angrypenguin Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 gov spending to GDP is low since the Dief years if I remember reading right maybe that is what is being referee to Finally someone gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) Finally someone gets it. You didn't say this... so how was anyone to know this is what you meant? Maybe instead of eyerolling, you could have actually said "I meant spending vs. GDP".... Well, I have some bad news for you.... In terms of spending vs. GDP, they spent more than the previous gov't. So, now let me guess.... you meant something else. That other spending.... Edited November 1, 2015 by The_Squid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) Provide us a cite for your demographic claims. Here you go. Saunders is an NDP zealot so you know when he's giving out the numbers he's not trying to make the Tories look good. n the 2011 federal election, the Tories attracted 42 per cent of the vote from foreign-born Canadians, higher than their 37-per-cent share among native-born Canadians. Now if Kenney becomes Tory leader, and he's smart, what he's going to do is soften the pro-Israel message, soften the security message, and then recruit all those Muslims who are the natural constituency of the Conservatives. And that means that percentage is only going to shoot higher. All you progressives love the thought of bringing in third world immigrants. "Oh, how quaint! Oh, what delightful clothing! Oh, what precious ethnic habits! <pats little brown man on head> Oh, what wonderful restaurants!" And you assume that since you're so amazingly tolerant and generous and condescending... I mean, understanding towards ethnic groups they'll all side with you. But they don't. Most new immigrants from the third world are conservative and religious. They don't approve of abortion, of gay rights, of feminism, of prostitution or drugs or any of the other noble social causes the Left cares about. They tend to like the Conservative social message more. So there is a distinct irony in that you guys, without even understanding that it was the Conservatives who tripled immigration back in the eighties for this very reason, are so fanatically supportive of bringing in ever larger numbers of immigrants from the third world, who will join the Conservatives in opposing everything you believe in. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/tories-gain-from-anti-immigrant-messaging-among-immigrants-what-gives/article26749675/ Edited November 1, 2015 by Argus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) You people on the Left are horrified by the very concept of freedom of speech, aren't you? On the Left? I don't know what you think the Left is if I am in it. Edited November 2, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Now if Kenney becomes Tory leader, and he's smart, what he's going to do is soften the pro-Israel message, soften the security message, and then recruit all those Muslims who are the natural constituency of the Conservatives. And that means that percentage is only going to shoot higher. All you progressives love the thought of bringing in third world immigrants. "Oh, how quaint! Oh, what delightful clothing! Oh, what precious ethnic habits! <pats little brown man on head> Oh, what wonderful restaurants!" And you assume that since you're so amazingly tolerant and generous and condescending... I mean, understanding towards ethnic groups they'll all side with you. But they don't. Most new immigrants from the third world are conservative and religious. They don't approve of abortion, of gay rights, of feminism, of prostitution or drugs or any of the other noble social causes the Left cares about. They tend to like the Conservative social message more. So there is a distinct irony in that you guys, without even understanding that it was the Conservatives who tripled immigration back in the eighties for this very reason, are so fanatically supportive of bringing in ever larger numbers of immigrants from the third world, who will join the Conservatives in opposing everything you believe in. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/tories-gain-from-anti-immigrant-messaging-among-immigrants-what-gives/article26749675/ One issue the Tories really misjudged was C-24. Every new Canadian had a little think about that and its potential significance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 On the Left? I don't know what you think the Left is if I am in it. I've noticed a lot of those on the Left like to pretend they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 I've noticed a lot of those on the Left like to pretend they're not. The left must include everyone up to PC voters then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 One issue the Tories really misjudged was C-24. Every new Canadian had a little think about that and its potential significance. I don't think every new Canadian felt it likely they would be arrested on terrorism charges and stripped of their citizenship. And evidently they still voted for the Tories more than 'old stock Canadians' did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 The left must include everyone up to PC voters then. If by PC you mean "progressive conservative" ie, someone who believes in big government, big spending, big deficits, big intervention in the private sector, and progressive social beliefs, then yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Michelle Rempel clearly wants to run for leader of the party. She mocks the "old boys network" via twitter recently... http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/michelle-rempel-on-running-for-tory-leader-im-a-35-year-old-chick-were-not-supposed-to-do-these-sorts-of-things “I’m a 35 year old chick. We’re not supposed to do these sorts of things, you know,” wrote the Calgary Nose Hill MP and outgoing minister of western economic diversification, who was re-elected for a second term in Monday’s election. “But but but but she’s so YOUNG and ONLY FOUR YEARS and SO BOSSY,” reads another tweet posted early Thursday. “These are the things we face. I am competent, proven, and ready. Here’s the question — are you ready for someone like me?” I don't think the CPC would be ready for a young woman to lead the party. And Trudeau can probably consider himself lucky about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Michelle Rempel clearly wants to run for leader of the party. She mocks the "old boys network" via twitter recently... yes! That twitter meltdown was classic. It's a shame she got shuffled away from Harper's HOC camera angles... catching her in "mid-flight twitter" while Harper was dodging questions was gold, real gold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) I don't think every new Canadian felt it likely they would be arrested on terrorism charges and stripped of their citizenship. And evidently they still voted for the Tories more than 'old stock Canadians' did. According to Paul Calandra, people were asking him such questions on the doorsteps in Markham. It was an issue. Once the principle is established, it would be easy to extend all over the place. Edited November 2, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 If by PC you mean "progressive conservative" ie, someone who believes in big government, big spending, big deficits, big intervention in the private sector, and progressive social beliefs, then yes. So elements of the Conservative Party are lefties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 So elements of the Conservative Party are lefties? No, it means Argus just makes things up on the fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 So elements of the Conservative Party are lefties? The Progressive Conservative Party died because it had no conservative beliefs or policies. There was nothing to differentiate them from the Liberal party, so the liberals left to join the Liberals and the conservatives left to form a new conservative party. The only ones who stayed were those who had no idea what they wanted and simply voted PC because they'd always voted PC. I'm sure some of those elements were still around when that dead rump party merged with the Alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 The Progressive Conservative Party died because it had no conservative beliefs or policies. There was nothing to differentiate them from the Liberal party, so the liberals left to join the Liberals and the conservatives left to form a new conservative party. The only ones who stayed were those who had no idea what they wanted and simply voted PC because they'd always voted PC. I'm sure some of those elements were still around when that dead rump party merged with the Alliance. And that new conservative party proved incapable of achieving government, finally forcing a merger with the old PC party. Your narrative seems to leave out the most important part. And frankly, with the demise of Harper, most of the remnants of Reform are gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 And that new conservative party proved incapable of achieving government, finally forcing a merger with the old PC party. Your narrative seems to leave out the most important part. And frankly, with the demise of Harper, most of the remnants of Reform are gone. A lot of people, the ones who didn't follow politics much but insisted on voting anyway, kept voting PC out of habit, and because it still had that dishonest 'conservative' word in its title. These were generally not very bright people, but hey, the Liberals have a lot more dummies voting for them so I suppose every party has to take what it can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 A lot of people, the ones who didn't follow politics much but insisted on voting anyway, kept voting PC out of habit, and because it still had that dishonest 'conservative' word in its title. These were generally not very bright people, but hey, the Liberals have a lot more dummies voting for them so I suppose every party has to take what it can get. You know, it's awfully hard to take you seriously when you write this kind of nonsense. People weren't voting reform because social conservatives like Randy White wouldn't keep their mouth's shut, even as Manning tried to push the party to the center. Manning, of course, actually believed in grassroots democracy, something Harper quickly discarded. That's what allowed the reunited Conservatives to achieve power, not your "PCs are morons" theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 People weren't voting reform because social conservatives like Randy White wouldn't keep their mouth's shut, even as Manning tried to push the party to the center And here we get the schizophrenia of those who complain they want parties to have less power over their MPs while at the same time demanding all MPs tow the party line and never speak their minds on any subject. The media is good at that too. And of course, any time a single backbench MP says anything which differs from the party position screaming headlines and breathless commentary will instantly associate every word with the party, and not that individual. What's wrong with their being social conservatives in a conservative party? Randy White never bothered me, even though I didn't agree with most of what he had to say. But then, I'm not a progressive. I believe in freedom of speech, and don't consider views which oppose mine to be anathema and in need of being suppressed. There will never be any freedom for individual MPs to speak their minds in the Canadian parliament - IN ANY PARTY - as long as this petulant intolerance prevails among so much of the electorate and media. Because every party knows that every word an individual MP utters will be used against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 And here we get the schizophrenia of those who complain they want parties to have less power over their MPs while at the same time demanding all MPs tow the party line and never speak their minds on any subject. The media is good at that too. And of course, any time a single backbench MP says anything which differs from the party position screaming headlines and breathless commentary will instantly associate every word with the party, and not that individual. What's wrong with their being social conservatives in a conservative party? Randy White never bothered me, even though I didn't agree with most of what he had to say. But then, I'm not a progressive. I believe in freedom of speech, and don't consider views which oppose mine to be anathema and in need of being suppressed. There will never be any freedom for individual MPs to speak their minds in the Canadian parliament - IN ANY PARTY - as long as this petulant intolerance prevails among so much of the electorate and media. Because every party knows that every word an individual MP utters will be used against them. Hey, I'm not defending Harper's silencing of his MPs. Quite the opposite. But the fact was that the arch-conservatives in the Reform Party were loud and stupid enough to give the Liberals' "secret agenda" conspiracy theory the weight it needed. You can condemn the electorate for being foolish, but the fact was they felt there was something vaguely threatening in Reform. Voters simply did not trust Reform, and to some extent Manning's ability to assure that if he formed a government, he could prevent social conservatism from creeping into policy. It was precisely Manning's dedication to populism that Harper rejected, and you can hate it or love it, but it won him three elections. The best way to deal with the more fringe elements of a party (and every party has them, even the Liberals had opponents to abortion and gay marriage in Chretien's caucus) is to simply not worry about them. If they say something outrageous, then distance yourself from it. "That's not the Government's intent or view" is an age-old way of dismissing the cranks in a governing party. But I think the Tories are fortunate that most of the Reform old guard are long gone now, and I don't think we're going to see any more Rob Anders and James Lunneys. Maybe history will show that the reunited Tories needed a leader like Harper to force the two halves together. But now, maybe, the Conservatives can let backbenchers have their say, even if it's ludicrous, and let their constituents decide whether to send them back or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) Just to return to something more relevant, Calandra claimed that C-24 was an issue on the doorsteps with new Canadians. As a relatively new Canadian myself, it is not hard to see why. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/27/paul-calandra-says-it-was-a-mistake-to-focus-on-niqab-barbaric-practices_n_8404422.html Edited November 2, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) I strongly disagree with JT's position on abortion. It is one thing to have it as party policy, which I support, quite another to demand every MP support it. For me, it's a matter of conscience that deserves a free vote. And I KNOW JT is perfectly within his rights to do what he did. I just happen to think that all parties should allow the opinions of their MPs to be freely expressed on this matter. Edited November 2, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) So everyone is fighting for the temp post which is kind of weird. Have so many applied before? Who will be in for the real job? Kenney, Raitt, Rempel? Edited November 2, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) So everyone is fighting for the temp post which is kind of weird. Have so many applied before? Who will be in for the real job? Kenney, Raitt, Rempel? Not Rempel. See my post earlier. She wants the top job. Edited November 2, 2015 by The_Squid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 2, 2015 Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 Not Rempel. See my post earlier. She wants the top job. They are three I have not seen in for the interim job - Kenney, Raitt, Rempel - so I presume they might be going for the big one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts