Canadian ISIS Sympathizer killed by police

[Guest]

Moronic comment. I was hoping for better from you, but as you haven't read the links and have apparently decided not to continue a reasoned conversation, I'll also withdraw.

.

I hardly ever read links. I don't have the time. I just like to argue.

[dialamah]

I hardly ever read links. I don't have the time. I just like to argue.

Good to know, thanks.

[Guest]

Caution is probably not a strong enough term; afraid is closer, but I was attempting to avoid offending the more conservative among us. Did you read the links? It's pretty interesting information....

There seems to be a definite fear of conservatives on here. I wouldn't know. I'm not a conservative, except when I vote...

I have read several studies and articles about conservatives being more sensitive to feelings of fear and anxiety and the desire for control. It is a a real and interesting phenomenon but discussing it never goes well because we tend to consider fear and anxiety weaknesses rather than just the feelings that they are. The false negative connotations generally cause conservative individuals to respond to discussions like this with anger and speculations of liberal elite researchers and media.

It's a shame because political scientists on both ends of the spectrum are fully aware of this phenomenon and target their audiences accordingly. Fearful, attack style ads really do resonate with conservative individuals, so it's not an accident that conservative politicians rely heavily on them. Those on the other end of the political spectrum tend to use them far less, not because they are more positive and principled, but because that type of ad just isn't effective with their target audience.

Our last federal election was a great example of this. JT and the current Grit crew use political data more effectively than anyone, which is why they nixed the Liberal membership fee. An email address and a little personal information is worth so much more to the party and their data tracking systems than a $50 fee. Anyway, they laid on the hope, change and positivity really thick and in a very targeted manner. Mulcair on the other hand, lost the left in part by his more negative and conservative style approach. Also, what did Harper do in the late days of the campaign when things didn't look good? He tried that niqab ban, hail marry pass that ultimately failed miserably. On the advice of Lynton Crosby, Harper attempted to create a swing topic to counter the refugee issue they were getting pummeled by. The idea was to reignite fear of foreigners, terrorists, etc.

This reality isn't anything to sneer at, nor is it the result of experience, hate, intellect, etc. We all become more sensitive to fear and anxiety as we age. As with all advertising, it is just nice to know how they are trying to play you.

[eyeball]

I'm just getting more pissed off at conservatism as I get older.

[capricorn]

I'm just getting more pissed off at conservatism as I get older.

I was all for liberalitism until conservatism came along and promised me more goodies than liberalitism. The tables have now turned and I am developing a soft spot for liberalitism and Justin's sunny ways cause it's good for my bank account. As Maggie Muggins would say "I don't know what will happen tomorrow."

[Argus]

I was all for liberalitism until conservatism came along and promised me more goodies than liberalitism. The tables have now turned and I am developing a soft spot for liberalitism and Justin's sunny ways cause it's good for my bank account. As Maggie Muggins would say "I don't know what will happen tomorrow."

Tomorrow is when the bills come due and they have to raise taxes and slash services.

[Guest]

Is that worse than the borrow and spend model employed by Canadian Conservatives?

[dialamah]

Is that worse than the borrow and spend model employed by Canadian Conservatives?

Don't be silly! The Conservatives had no choice but to spend, spend, spend ... they were forced to by the Liberals, and by the uhh ... economy and uh by uhhh ... well, mostly by the Liberals. So it's the Liberal's fault. Poor misunderstood Conservatives!

[Argus]

Is that worse than the borrow and spend model employed by Canadian Conservatives?

Oh please. Your chart is extremely deceptive. Virtually all the debt the Mulroney government ran up was because of the sky-high interest rates on the debt the previous Liberals had run up. The Liberals STARTED the debt, and Mulroney inherited it in a time of double digit inflation and double digit unemployment.

And Harper's debt was due to two factors: The first was the world wide recession, and the second was his government's minority status. Given the Liberals, BQ and NDP were going to vote the government out of power if it didn't put in a multi-billion dollar incentive program Harper had very little choice in the matter.

[Argus]

Don't be silly! The Conservatives had no choice but to spend, spend, spend ... they were forced to by the Liberals, and by the uhh ... economy and uh by uhhh ... well, mostly by the Liberals. So it's the Liberal's fault. Poor misunderstood Conservatives!

Yes, pay no attention to reality. That's not important. Only pretty colors and pictures matter in the superficial world of the progressive.

Of course, if anyone mentions the massive debt load Obama has run up you won't point to the previous Republican government's actions as being the cause will you?

Edited August 18, 2016 by Argus

[Guest]

I'm just getting more pissed off at conservatism as I get older.

Me too. Not all of them of course, but certainly most of them.

[Argus]

Me too. Not all of them of course, but certainly most of them.

And why is that?

[Guest]

And why is that?

Things like honour killing, blasphemy laws, etc.

[?Impact]

Virtually all the debt the Mulroney government ran up was because of the sky-high interest rates on the debt the previous Liberals had run up.

Except the facts are the complete opposite. Trudeau was dealing with the highest interest rates ever at over 20% in the few years he ran up most of his debt, while Mulroney had significant lower interest rates (10-15%). Harper had the lowest interest rates ever at less than 1%, and he ran up debt like never before.

b.tw. Trudeau had a huge recession in the early 80's when he ran up most of his debt, but you conveniently use that excuse for Harper and ignore reality.

If you want to get back to the US, then why don't you mention Raegan who was the man that started the massive debt spiral?

Is it the tint on your glasses, or chemicals?

[Argus]

Things like honour killing, blasphemy laws, etc.

I'm a conservative and I don't believe in those things. In fact, I don't know a single conservative who does. Progressives are the ones who support that, not us.

[Argus]

Except the facts are the complete opposite. Trudeau was dealing with the highest interest rates ever at over 20% in the few years he ran up most of his debt, while Mulroney had significant lower interest rates (10-15%). Harper had the lowest interest rates ever at less than 1%, and he ran up debt like never before.

Pretty irrelevant. Canada has virtually no debt when the Liberals took office. Trudeau doubled spending, DOUBLED it in his first term of office, then doubled it again in his second term. That's where the debt comes from. Yes, then along came 20% interest rates. That shoots debt up pretty damned fast. And that's what Trudeau left to Mulroney in the middle of a worldwide recession.

If you want to get back to the US, then why don't you mention Raegan who was the man that started the massive debt spiral?

Is it the tint on your glasses, or chemicals?

Okay, if you prefer him to Bush. Point is I don't blame Obama for a debt that was caused by the Republicans. But you do blame Harper and Mulroney for debt caused by Liberals.

[?Impact]

Trudeau left to Mulroney in the middle of a worldwide recession.

The recession(s) were in 1980-82, long before Mulroney took office. I suggest you fact check first.

But you do blame Harper and Mulroney for debt caused by Liberals.

No, Mulroney and Harper only share 75-80% of our debt, the debt they created. Trudeau is responsible for about 20%, and the remainder is what he inherited mostly from WWII.

[TimG]

Trudeau is responsible for about 20%, and the remainder is what he inherited mostly from WWII.

You got to be kidding. The difference between Harper and the current Trudeau is Harper recognized that the deficit is problem and worked to reduce it as soon as economic times made it possible, Trudeau has no believable plan to reduce the deficit and will likely increase it year after year because he can't say no to spending.

[Argus]

The recession(s) were in 1980-82, long before Mulroney took office. I suggest you fact check first.

Mulroney was in power for about nine years. Unemployment was over 10% in six of those years, and inflation was in double digits, as well.

No, Mulroney and Harper only share 75-80% of our debt, the debt they created. Trudeau is responsible for about 20%, and the remainder is what he inherited mostly from WWII.

Nice Liberal blinders. Trudeau inherited a country which was pretty much debt free. Hard to imagine such a thing, eh? We owed a total of about $14 billion when he took over. By the time he was out that was up to $130 billion. What happens to a debt with interest rates of 20% Especially if you have to keep borrowing because of high unemployment and inflation - and because you're stuck paying the interest on that huge debt? Yap. It explodes upward. Doesn't take long either. I'm not a fan of Mulroney and I think he could have done more to get spending under control faster, but most of the debt he added came because of the high debt service charges Trudeau saddled him with.

[Guest]

I'm a conservative and I don't believe in those things. In fact, I don't know a single conservative who does. Progressives are the ones who support that, not us.

Well, that's why I said not all of them.

The progressives of which you speak are not progressive, as I have said.

Edited August 19, 2016 by bcsapper

[?Impact]

Nice Liberal blinders.

You keep repeating the same proven false allegations - do your research on facts.

The difference between Harper and the current Trudeau

We were not talking about the current Trudeau. I suggest you wait until Trudeau has some time in the big chair before commenting, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

[Argus]

You keep repeating the same proven false allegations - do your research on facts.

Interesting debating tactic. I gave you statements of fact and you simply say I should do research while providing NOTHING to contradict them.

[?Impact]

I gave you statements of fact

The fact is that both the recession and 20%+ interest rates occurred 2-3 years before Mulroney took office. That is indisputable, yet you continue to make that completely false claim. To top it off, you excuse Mulroney for running deficits because of these items yet blame Trudeau who actually had to deal with them. Your blind partisanship has descended to the ridiculous.

[Argus]

The fact is that both the recession and 20%+ interest rates occurred 2-3 years before Mulroney took office. That is indisputable, yet you continue to make that completely false claim. To top it off, you excuse Mulroney for running deficits because of these items yet blame Trudeau who actually had to deal with them. Your blind partisanship has descended to the ridiculous.

The fact is that inflation and unemployment were both in double digits during much of Mulroney's reign. You're simply lying about it. The fact is that Trudeau had virtually no debt when he took power, but he doubled spending, and then doubled it again. This is indisputable. He created the debt. The interest rates then acted on that debt. Your blind partisanship has always been ridiculous and has now plummeted to the absurd. I made no excuses for Mulroney, because unlike yourself, I'm not frantically attached to any particular ideology or party.

[?Impact]

The fact is that inflation and unemployment were both in double digits during much of Mulroney's reign. You're simply lying about it. The fact is that Trudeau had virtually no debt when he took power, but he doubled spending, and then doubled it again. This is indisputable. He created the debt. The interest rates then acted on that debt. Your blind partisanship has always been ridiculous and has now plummeted to the absurd. I made no excuses for Mulroney, because unlike yourself, I'm not frantically attached to any particular ideology or party.

You really need to research before you post. When Trudeau took over Canada's debt was about 23% of GDP. He reduced it to about 12% of GDP by the mid 70's, but increased it again to about 28% of GDP by the time he left office. Mulroney ballooned it 65% of GDP. Trudeau had 5 years of double digit inflation to contend with (give 9 months to Clark to be fair), Mulroney had none (highest level was 5.1% in 1991). Yes unemployment was in the double digits in the mid-80's for close to 2 years under both PMs. Mulroney also had a year and a half of double digit unemployment in the 90's.