Fellow Conservatives,whats more important to you?

[caesar]

Nonsense Big Blue; if you wanted to see how they would answer "differently"; then you need everyone's view.

Besides, it is not a Conservative decision to make yuk yuk

[Big Blue Machine]

I wanted to see how much difference there was in answers of conservatives.

[Stoker]

I fail to see why this is a zero sum question........

How about this:

Are Conservatives in favour of either increased defence spending and tax relief or further government waste through sponsership scandles and gun registries?

As for BBM directing this question at Conservatives only, I see no problem with that...........Both these issues happan to be at the top of the lists of reforms needed when the Conservatives form the government........

[caesar]

As for BBM directing this question at Conservatives only, I see no problem with that...........Both these issues happan to be at the top of the lists of reforms needed when the Conservatives form the government........

No problem; but makes little sense as the conservatives need to change leaders before they can even dream of forming the next government. As for influence in the present government; the NDP and/or Bloc will carry more weight.

[daniel]

I wanted to see how much difference there was in answers of conservatives.

You should have asked the question at Freedominion and then just reported back the results.

[Stoker]

No problem; but makes little sense as the conservatives need to change leaders before they can even dream of forming the next government.

Ahh, but the party and it's policy are greater then any one party leader..........as for changing the leader.....why?

Mulrony was the last Tory leader to share the same level of success as Harper on the federal level.......things look way better for the party now, then they did this time last year.

As for influence in the present government; the NDP and/or Bloc will carry more weight.

How many seats to the NDP and Bloc have combined? How many do the Conservaties have?

But to get back onto topic........

[caesar]

Mulrony was the last Tory leader to share the same level of success as Harper on the federal level.......things look way better for the party now, then they did this time last year.

the most hated political leader in Canada and Harper is closing in on his record.

[Stoker]

the most hated political leader in Canada and Harper is closing in on his record.

You do understand that some would interpret your post as one of a trolling nature.........

Now caesar, I fail to understand why a person that is so openly "not Conservative" such as your self, keeps wasting your time (and ours) posting in a topic about Conservative values.

I could understand to a degree one wanting to voice their opinion on the subject even if they were not Conservative in nature, with that said, I'd ask them still to perhaps post a new thread asking everybody or those of a different political stripe. (instead of moving this thread off topic)

But caesar, you don't add anything to the disscusion other then insults directed at posters and their politicial ideals........what is your problem?

[Stoker]

.........Now to get onto topic

Well I think it's possible for both. Although it seems counter-intuitive, it's proven that tax cuts generate more government revenue. Canada would be far more productive and money would be availible for better military funding. There is so much waste in Canadian government as it is that there would be plenty of money for both if we had a conservative government.

I agree here wholeheartedly I miss Reagan........funding defence and tax relief (and healthcare, education, the enviroment etc) don't have to be an either/or question.

If you have four friends over for dinner and two more show up, instead of taking from the four orginal friends.........make a larger dinner.

Tax cuts are good, but we don't need huge ones all the time. Small ones every once in a while is good. I don't like the Bush style tax cuts for only the rich. Tax cuts should be for everyone.

What makes "small tax cuts" good? IOW, if a small tax does good to the econmoy, why won't a larger tax cut do even better?

And would you care to explain how Bush's tax cut was only for the rich? Are you saying that the refund cheques printed by the United States treasury for "normal people" was nothing but a ruse? A Jedi mind trick if you will?

Money for the military is even better because if we need to lend support to the UN, we can. We don't have to sit around because we don't have the equipment to get us there. We could have a militia type military.

Why do you want a "militia type military"? What would be the benifit to having a "weekend warrior" force as opposed to a professional military?

I agree with having a useful militia, but not to replace the pros with........

[Big Blue Machine]

The damn question was:

If you had ONE choice in a budget, would it be for big tax cuts OR increased military spending.

That's the question, and nothing else. This question is for conservatives because those are the issues in our hearts.

[Stoker]

The damn question was:

If you had ONE choice in a budget, would it be for big tax cuts OR increased military spending.

That's the question, and nothing else. This question is for conservatives because those are the issues in our hearts.

And the damn question is fallacy.....it's not an either or choice. Both tax cuts and a increase in defence spending are possable and needed.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I would prefer to provide incentives for the wealth creators, educated and the rich to stay in Canada by keeping taxes competitive for them.

What is your definition of a 'wealth creator'?

It seems to me that you may be equating the concept of 'wealth creation' with 'wealth possession'. If so, you may end up advocating socially irresponsible incentivisation.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't want to be left hoping someone else is still able to make enough money to afford to pay for my kids and everyone else’s.

This neatly captures the point of view which will lead us to a collapse of society. You don't trust in institutions to provide for 'the good', and so you don't want to support them ... and thus they become incapable of providing for 'the good'. Unfortunately, history demonstrates and economics proves that cooperative action is instrumental to our survival comfort and growth of wealth. To defy this fact will undermine human progress.

[daniel]

The damn question was:

If you had ONE choice in a budget, would it be for big tax cuts OR increased military spending.

That's the question, and nothing else. This question is for conservatives because those are the issues in our hearts.

Life isn't as black and white as you hoped, eh? Not even one simple question.

Tax cuts =

1)Budget cuts over every program including transfer payments to the provinces; and/or

2) increase the deficit.

Military spending:

1)Tax hikes to pay for it; and/or

2) budget cuts the everything else to pay for it; and/or

3) increase the deficit

[willy]

QUOTE (willy @ Dec 31 2004, 02:25 PM)

I don't want to be left hoping someone else is still able to make enough money to afford to pay for my kids and everyone else’s. 

This neatly captures the point of view which will lead us to a collapse of society. You don't trust in institutions to provide for 'the good', and so you don't want to support them ... and thus they become incapable of providing for 'the good'. Unfortunately, history demonstrates and economics proves that cooperative action is instrumental to our survival comfort and growth of wealth. To defy this fact will undermine human progress.

If you are going to quote me, you should include the qualifier statement.

For this thing to work called society we need some self reliance and the more the better for those who have no choice but to rely on help (disabled, disaster).

We need government help, but to give up our self determination to institutions is Russia 1904 - 1988. That worked out well.

This is not about no institutions, but to think institutions can propagate the common good is not realistic. That my friend is the worst kind of romanticism and it plays out on both sides of the political spectrum. The answer is what works and not to idealize organizations. If we have all seen the movie the Corporation or read the book by now, it show very good examples why we should not trust institutions. They have no personality, no individual accountability, they are in essence psychopathic.

[Guest eureka]

Only institutions can propagate the "common good." Or are you another of the dreamong anarchists?

Russia 1904-1988 is not about the institutionalization of society but about the defeat of democratic institutions by authoritarianism. You could leave out the first several years of that period when the attempt was to build democratic institutions and end autocracy.

This self reliance ideal is almost amusing. It is the propaganda of the selfish in America that leads to that country being the most savage country in the Western World towards its underprovoleged. Self reliance and individualism are te watchwords of brutality. Of course, the society is the most conformist and least self reliant of the "democratic" nations. Self reliance needs a solid base of safety and security. It does not need a deferential and frightened populace kowtowing to whatever authority provides the paycheque.

[willy]

This self reliance ideal is almost amusing. It is the propaganda of the selfish in America that leads to that country being the most savage country in the Western World towards its underprovoleged.

Two points:

I never suggested that this was an ideal. Many must be self reliant so the few who can't will be taken care of. Look at it this way, some need to produce to much so others may have some if they can not produce at all. If we were all waiting for someone else to produce we would grow hungry and cold. The world needs productive people.

Second point is simply that the US gets a bad rap. The underprivileged that you talk about flock to the US for a better life. They call it the land of opportunity for a reason.

[Guest eureka]

Being "productive" and being self-reliant are not necessarily the same thing. A very large proportion of any population is incapable of self-reliance and must rely on others to provide the vessel for productivity.

The United States does not get a bad rap. The underprivileged I talk about are its own citizens who do suffer greatly. The underprivileged you write of are those desperate citizens of poor nations who are attempting to find anything better than they have.

The United States has the worst poverty rates and the greatest degree of homelessness in the developed world. It is not ging it a bad rap to state this truth.

[caesar]

But caesar, you don't add anything to the disscusion other then insults directed at posters and their politicial ideals........what is your problem? 

What discussion. What insults??? Why should we show any respect for your ideals when conservatives on this forum cannot address the Liberal party with their proper name; just insulting names like fiberals or lieberals. What have you ever added to a discussion but insults to Canada and/or the Liberal party. If all the conservatives want to be closed mind children; they are not worthy of discussing anything with.

[Stoker]

caesar Posted: Dec 31 2004, 01:26 PM

Don't bother; the choice is not yours to make. The Conservatives LOST the election The NDP or the BLOC will have more influence than do the Harper Conservatives. Get a leader that doesn't act and talk like a nut case and we may listen. One that talks like a Canadian not a Bush butt kisser,

caesar  Posted: Dec 31 2004, 01:29 PM

This is a democratic style forum, last time I looked and we will comment all we want. Besides many of us have no blind loyalty to any party but judge them on a day by day; speech by speech, or their actions.

caesar Posted: Jan 1 2005, 10:48 AM

Nonsense Big Blue; if you wanted to see how they would answer "differently"; then you need everyone's view.

Besides, it is not a Conservative decision to make yuk yuk

caesar  Posted: Jan 2 2005, 11:40 AM

No problem; but makes little sense as the conservatives need to change leaders before they can even dream of forming the next government. As for influence in the present government; the NDP and/or Bloc will carry more weight.

caesar  Posted: Jan 2 2005, 02:42 PM

the most hated political leader in Canada and Harper is closing in on his record.

caesar  Posted: Jan 4 2005, 09:32 PM

What discussion. What insults??? Why should we show any respect for your ideals when conservatives on this forum cannot address the Liberal party with their proper name; just insulting names like fiberals or lieberals. What have you ever added to a discussion but insults to Canada and/or the Liberal party. If all the conservatives want to be closed mind children; they are not worthy of discussing anything with.

These are your posts from this thread. Which ones deal with Conservative values related to Defence funding and tax cuts?

Here are my posts:

Stoker Posted: Jan 2 2005, 11:33 AM

I fail to see why this is a zero sum question........ 

How about this:

Are Conservatives in favour of either increased defence spending and tax relief or further government waste through sponsership scandles and gun registries?

As for BBM directing this question at Conservatives only, I see no problem with that...........Both these issues happan to be at the top of the lists of reforms needed when the Conservatives form the government........

Stoker Posted: Jan 2 2005, 01:13 PM

QUOTE 

No problem; but makes little sense as the conservatives need to change leaders before they can even dream of forming the next government.

Ahh, but the party and it's policy are greater then any one party leader..........as for changing the leader.....why?

Mulrony was the last Tory leader to share the same level of success as Harper on the federal level.......things look way better for the party now, then they did this time last year.

QUOTE 

As for influence in the present government; the NDP and/or Bloc will carry more weight. 

How many seats to the NDP and Bloc have combined? How many do the Conservaties have?

But to get back onto topic........

Stoker Posted: Jan 2 2005, 04:05 PM

You do understand that some would interpret your post as one of a trolling nature.........

Now caesar, I fail to understand why a person that is so openly "not Conservative" such as your self, keeps wasting your time (and ours) posting in a topic about Conservative values.

I could understand to a degree one wanting to voice their opinion on the subject even if they were not Conservative in nature, with that said, I'd ask them still to perhaps post a new thread asking everybody or those of a different political stripe. (instead of moving this thread off topic)

But caesar, you don't add anything to the disscusion other then insults directed at posters and their politicial ideals........what is your problem? 

Stoker Posted: Jan 2 2005, 04:22 PM

I agree here wholeheartedly I miss Reagan........funding defence and tax relief (and healthcare, education, the enviroment etc) don't have to be an either/or question.

If you have four friends over for dinner and two more show up, instead of taking from the four orginal friends.........make a larger dinner.

What makes "small tax cuts" good? IOW, if a small tax does good to the econmoy, why won't a larger tax cut do even better?

And would you care to explain how Bush's tax cut was only for the rich? Are you saying that the refund cheques printed by the United States treasury for "normal people" was nothing but a ruse? A Jedi mind trick if you will?

Why do you want a "militia type military"? What would be the benifit to having a "weekend warrior" force as opposed to a professional military?

I agree with having a useful militia, but not to replace the pros with........

Stoker Posted: Jan 2 2005, 07:30 PM

And the damn question is fallacy.....it's not an either or choice. Both tax cuts and a increase in defence spending are possable and needed.

Who's posts tend to be relating to this thread's topic?

Now really caesar, do you have anything to contribute or are you going to contiune to waste Greg's bandwidth and in turn, money?

[Pateris]

Eureka,

The American's don't get a bad rap... LOL

The poorest 10% of America are still better off than 99% of Africans.

And the "poverty rates" depend on the definition of poverty. If you use a LICO-style poverty definition, then the average "poverty-stricken" american is better off than the bottom half of the OECD...

And you've never answered my question - HAVE YOU EVER LIVED IN THE USA? Or is everything you know from the Canadian media?

[Cartman]

How in the world is the military a Conservative issue in any way, shape or form BBM? WTF? Neocons believe that if people want something, like a military, public health care, schools etc etc, people should be free to pay for it voluntarily with charitable donations. To suggest otherwise is to be part of the socialist/communist camp comrades. You might as well ask for the precise solution to Pi because it will be just as irrational and whimsical.

[Guest eureka]

The misconceptions are entirely yours. The situation of the bottom 10% of Americans compared to the poorest nations is competely irrelevant. The only valid comparison is with other groups in their own country.

And, the average "poverty stricken" American is not better off than the bottom half of OECD. Not by a very long way using LICO or any measure of quality that you wish.

As for your question, I have no intention of answering it. I will, though, say that I demonstrably have a much greater knowledge of America than you have.

[Stoker]

How in the world is the military a Conservative issue in any way, shape or form BBM? WTF? Neocons believe that if people want something, like a military, public health care, schools etc etc, people should be free to pay for it voluntarily with charitable donations. To suggest otherwise is to be part of the socialist/communist camp comrades. You might as well ask for the precise solution to Pi because it will be just as irrational and whimsical

But Neocons also understand that a miltary can be used to further and defend a nations economic intrests and general well being.

With that said, i did post a thread a month or so back asking if Canada should outsource it's military to the United States..........

[caesar]

I am not as much a waste as you and your ideas and negative energy knowcking our Canadian government and supporting that despot and liar Bush.

I stand by myu statement. Mulroney is the most despise leader in Canada. Harper is a bald faced liar claiming he never suggested Canada should join the USA in the invasion of Iraq.

So. Paul Martin is not my ideal but sure beats Harper any day of the week.