Fellow Conservatives,whats more important to you?

[Stoker]

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.

Personnal attack.

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.

Attack on ones political ideals.

So what does this post have to do with the Conservative stance on funding of the miltary and tax cuts?

caesar, I suggest you read this thread again:

Off-Topic Discussions, The Forums are NOT Your Personal Website

Now to clarifiy, i don't have thin skin and I fully admit that i can give it just as well as other can and do, but atleast the majority of others and myself on this site can remain with some semblance to the topic at hand.

[caesar]

Stoker; It is personal attack and is what I have gotten from you since day one. Tit for tat. I would put you on my ignore list.

Attack on one's personal political ideals is what it is all about. Do you think Conservatives are any better or different. Do you think that calling the Liberals lieberals or fiberals is anything but childish attacks without substance. Do you think this forum should be a conservative love fest.

[willy]

Do you think that calling the Liberals lieberals or fiberals is anything but childish attacks without substance.

This is not without substance. The style of politics that the Liberal Party has used for the last 12 years is one that lacks vision and substance. They govern by polls and try to be everything to everyone. When doing this one gets caught in many lies. At least the NDP and the Conservatives have a clear stance and ideals.

The Liberals have the Gormly commission!!

Back to topic, I am a Conservative and we need a public military. Neocons don't believe in no government, that would be anarchy.

When commenting on parties we should not get confused with the definitions of the words that are used to describe our political beliefs. The Conservative Party is a title and not the definition of neocon. Many views can be accommodated by the party as a coalition of interests. I think this tread was trying to explore what those that support this party feel about these issues.

The socialists among us are so egotistical they had to chime in, because as they always state it is not fair or equitable unless they can wreck a good thing.

[Guest eureka]

Would you be so good as to explain to me what the "clear stance" of the Conservative Party is? It is fairly clear to me as I have explained on some threads. I think, though, that most are somewhat confused including many "conservatives."

[willy]

Read it yourself.

http://www.conservative.ca/english/issues.asp

The small c "conservatives" on this forum are individuals and they can think what they like.

None of us are in a position to say what everyone of anything believes. But I can read a policy statement.

If a new issue was to arise, I can guess based on my experience what the position of the Conservative Party would be. I am usally in agreement. This makes me a Conservative with a big C.

The Conservative Party has some core beliefs and I am sure you recognize them.

And please don't hate me because you aint me.

[daniel]

...

The Conservative Party has some core beliefs and I am sure you recognize them. ...

The Reformers in the party are against the GST. No wait, they support it now.

The Conservative Party is against Same Sex Marriage, but want a free vote on the issue so they'll accept it if it passes even though they're still dead against it.

The Conservative Party says Canada should stand Shoulder-to-shoulder on Iraq - but not in Iraq.

The Conservative Party will support the United States on every issue except we're not sure what the Conservative Party wants Canada to do when it really counts.

[willy]

The Reformers in the party are against the GST. No wait, they support it now.

The Conservative Party is against Same Sex Marriage, but want a free vote on the issue so they'll accept it if it passes even though they're still dead against it.

The Conservative Party says Canada should stand Shoulder-to-shoulder on Iraq - but not in Iraq.

The Conservative Party will support the United States on every issue except we're not sure what the Conservative Party wants Canada to do when it really counts.

What's your point? It is clear you don't like how they approach these issues but to say you really don't know where they stand is silly.

No one likes taxes. But governments need revenues.

They think the MP's should represent constituents and debate issues in the house like Same Sex Marriage.

They wanted Canada to support the US in Iraq but recognize that we don't have the resources to help. We are active in Afghanistan and that is in conjunction with the US war on terror.

Canada should be careful when poking the big elephant to the south and it would be wise to use discretion when we disagree. We are dependent on them to maintain our standard of living and the revenues in taxes we need to pay for our government services.

So again what is your point? You put a negative spin on their stance and I put the positive. It is a democracy and they represent me well. You don't have to agree that is why we have other parties.

One other little thing, what does this have to do with the topic of tax cuts and military spending?

[daniel]

Flipflopflipflop. It's ok only on the right foot.

[willy]

Decisions and issue positions should be made with the context of each situation being examined. All situations are dynamic and as information changes positions may change.

The values that help you make decision should be more concrete.

The party is not perfect but who or what is.

I don't agree with many things in the Conservative party from simple messaging to complex policy but that being said they are my team. What is your team? If you don't have one you aren't even in the game. Fans make lots of noise but really do they change anything.

daniel what brilliant leader would you have us follow and what are the clear positions they represent.

[Guest eureka]

The "Conservative" stance as officially shown, is what is troubling about the Party. It is what they do not say that is important. That, I have posted some of. For the outstanding example: the Healthcare position. That, as I have posted a few times, is for means tested access and the removal of the Federal government form the field.

For this topic only, how do they pay for the military they claim to want when the only real proposal they make is to cut taxes from an already ready revenue starved country?

[willy]

For this topic only, how do they pay for the military they claim to want when the only real proposal they make is to cut taxes from an already ready revenue starved country?

It is no surprise, I don't see this country as revenue starved and if I did I would not advocate more taxes. I would advocate more economic production. The government does however have little to do with economic growth directly. All government can do is enable a competitive tax environment, good transportation and an educated work force. Then they need to stay out of the way.

It is reasonable to expect our military to be able to be in the air, on land and in the water. Our equipment is not sufficient. The fact we have to lease planes is a clear example of inadequate capital resources. This does not make us war mongers but recognizes that for peace keeping and disaster aid we need equipment that works and does not put our soldiers in unreasonable danger.

[kimmy]

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.

How does Harper deserve even a tiny fraction of the hatred that Jean Chretien deserves?

-kimmy

[I miss Reagan]

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.

My definition of wealth creators are motivated people like potential doctors, scientists, entrepreneurs, artists and business leaders. We have put ourselves in a positition left with only the mediocre. It's a liberal myth that most wealth is inherited. Most wealth is created by hard working people who have incentives to do so.

[kimmy]

Every time the issue of military spending is mentioned on this message board, a certain left-wing kook always asks "why should we spend money on the military?" and I always reply that if we want to participate in the kinds of humanitarian missions that Canadians are supposedly proud of, we need to maintain the capability of doing so. In the past I have asked "what if we wanted to participate in a mission in Sudan?" but right now the horrible disaster in SE Asia is an even better example of why we have to maintain certain military capabilities. The most important of which is getting Canadian personnel and equipment to places where they are needed. Did I read that we had to rent a Russian freight airplane to get our personnel to the disaster areas?

I have just read the DART thread, where it was revealed that Australia, which is a smaller and poorer country than us, has still managed to maintain this sort of capability more than we have.

During a thread last month during the discussion of helicopters, submarines, and F-18 Hornets, I learned while researching a post that Canada's airforce purchased 5 A320 Airbus airplanes from an airline during the Mulroney years and converted them for military use. Right now these planes are being so heavily used that one analyst expects they will suffer premature failure because of overuse. Our fleet of Hercules transports is very old.

Somebody in the DART thread said something like "Canada always wants a seat at the table of world affairs, but when it's time to pick up the tab, Canada heads for the washroom." I thought it was a very apt comment.

Canadians are supposedly proud of our participation in international humanitarian efforts and peacekeeping around the world. But participating in those kinds of activities costs money and Canadians seem not to want to spend it.

-kimmy

[August1991]

Every time the issue of military spending is mentioned on this message board, a certain left-wing kook always asks "why should we spend money on the military?" and I always reply that if we want to participate in the kinds of humanitarian missions that Canadians are supposedly proud of, we need to maintain the capability of doing so. In the past I have asked "what if we wanted to participate in a mission in Sudan?"

Our PM is Catholic, as about half of Canadians. (Underdog Irish, French, etc.) The Protestants are Anglicans, not Episcopalians.

Sending Canadians to help? No problem.

In the future, who knows? Canada's military is now traditional with many East Coast Maritime Lobsters. Canada is changing. But I think the Lobsters will assimilate the foreigners best and make Canada.

[This post too is a risk. Am I wrong?]

[kimmy]

Our PM is Catholic, as about half of Canadians. (Underdog Irish, French, etc.) The Protestants are Anglicans, not Episcopalians.

Sending Canadians to help? No problem.

In the future, who knows? Canada's military is now traditional with many East Coast Maritime Lobsters. Canada is changing. But I think the Lobsters will assimilate the foreigners best and make Canada.

[This post too is a risk. Am I wrong?]

(Is this message in some kind of code?)

-kimmy

{The fat man walks at midnight. The owls are not what they seem. Send four fried chickens and one piece of dry white toast.}

[Big Blue Machine]

Why can't this question be black and white? Is it so hard to choose either tax cuts or military? Say you couldn't generate enough money to do both, which one would you pick then?

[kimmy]

If it can be only one or the other, then my vote is for military. If we're serious about being sovereign and having our own presence in international affairs, then we have to be able to meet our international commitments. And that often means military, whether in participating in aid and relief efforts, peacekeeping, or being able to meet commitments that we have made to our allies.

-kimmy

[Big Blue Machine]

Thank you, kimmy for your input.

[canadian_ace]

With the question of what i would want more tax cuts or military spending i would chose the military spending.How much does an average person really get to save Tax cuts?

As a previous person said our c-130 hercules are becoming very old and the military relies heavley on them. Early last year I read a news report on the army website which said that cracks were being found in the aging fleet and flight hours were being cut back.

I think that Canada should really take a look at what we are putting on the battle field our tanks cannot leave the country and we have sea kings requiring an exterme amount of repair time. (30 hours of repair for 1 hour of flight). Now i realize that that problem is in its enfancy of being sloved but i think that Liberal party crippled the army of the future which is now the present through terminating the purchase of replacement helicopters.

As a Canadian not just a conservative i think that we need to at least make sure that our military will have the safesty equipment for the men and women fighting. I dont mean to have a huge army like the states just one which can live up to our commientments with the UN and NATO.

And about those pervious accusations to Stephn Harper i feel that he is a true Canadian he likes to speak about his ideas and wants to see a change away from what the Liberals want and i think that i just scares Canadians to think outside the Liberal box.

[brianw]

In many areas of Canada women and children are being thrown out of their homes by the government for not being able to meet the ever increasing "debt to society". How can you advocate this in favour of having a "force to be reckond with"?

Military is supposed to be for defence isn't it (Unless you advocate military as an offense)? Is that what we are doing in other countries? Defending ourselves? There are better ways to provide aid than to spend the money on a "formidable force". Throwing our women and children into the street should not be one of them.

[kimmy]

Military is supposed to be for defence isn't it (Unless you advocate military as an offense)? Is that what we are doing in other countries? Defending ourselves? There are better ways to provide aid than to spend the money on a "formidable force".

"Defending ourselves"? Uh, remember those peace-keeping and humanitarian missions Canadians are supposedly so proud of? Who do you think does that stuff? Remember our "DART" team that went to the tsunami-devastated areas last month? DART is a part of the Canadian forces. And as I recall, DART sat around for a week while they figured out how to get Canadian equipment to the places it was needed. Didn't we ultimately have to rent a Russian jalopy freight-plane to get our stuff where it was needed? In the days after the disaster, people needed clean water and we could have given it to them if we could have just got our crap there sooner. We did get our stuff there eventually, and I'm sure our people did a superb job and helped many people, but how much more could have been done if we could have only had our people there sooner?

-kimmy

[brianw]

Uh, remember those peace-keeping and humanitarian missions Canadians are supposedly so proud of?

So, throw women and children into the street to provide humanitarian relief? Makes absolute sense.

DART is a part of the Canadian forces.

Should it be?

DART sat around for a week while they figured out how to get Canadian equipment to the places it was needed.

And the equipment would sit around for years until it is needed again and by that time it would be too old to be of any use. Makes sense.

Didn't we ultimately have to rent a Russian jalopy freight-plane to get our stuff where it was needed?

Shouldn't humanitarian aid be joint efforts anyway?

Again, there are better ways to provide aid than to pay a standing army to provide aid.

Also, should our people, including women and children, be thrown out into the street to pay for your pride?

[kimmy]

Again, there are better ways to provide aid than to pay a standing army to provide aid.

Also, should our people, including women and children, be thrown out into the street to pay for your pride?

I'll take that as a vote for "more money to social programs". That's a perfectly valid viewpoint.

However, as a nation we've collectively decided that we do place a value on participating in the international community, through peacekeeping, foreign aid, participating in disaster relief, and military commitments to our allies. Money will continue to be spent to support those objectives, even if "women and children are being thrown out into the street" here at home.

-kimmy

[Army Guy]

Brainw:

In many areas of Canada women and children are being thrown out of their homes by the government for not being able to meet the ever increasing "debt to society". How can you advocate this in favour of having a "force to be reckond with"?

Not being able to pay your taxes, is unfortunate,That being said Canada does have programs and services to ensure that these people do not end up in the street, as you suggest discarded....

On the other hand having a moderate sized military ensures Canada can enforce it foreign policy bringing peace to the areas like Dafur, ethopia, Somolia and feed millions...of staving men,women, and children...you can't do that without a strong,well equiped military...

Military is supposed to be for defence isn't it (Unless you advocate military as an offense)? Is that what we are doing in other countries? Defending ourselves? There are better ways to provide aid than to spend the money on a "formidable force". Throwing our women and children into the street should not be one of them.

In some areas of the world "Offensive" action is required....yes Canada has taken offensive action while on peacekeeping mission....Cyprus island in the 70's Canada's elite Canadain Airbourne Regt jumped in between both the greeks and turks fighting both sides to a stand still.... And in Bosina a platoon of young PPCLI engages a Armoured Croat unit....trying to delay UN forces while the Croats wipe out the town...there a many more examples...of what Canadain soldiers have done while serving thier country ....in order to protect the people of the world...

Canadians have got alot to be grateful for....and until you have been sent to those areas of the world in which truely have nothing...seen with your own eyes...i say that because pictures don't tell all of the story you need to experiance it with all your senses...you will not even begin to know what difference your Military makes in the world.....

DART is a part of the Canadian forces.

Should it be?

"yes as the military already has the infra-structure and the equipment to to do so...

QUOTE

DART sat around for a week while they figured out how to get Canadian equipment to the places it was needed.

"no" it did not .....it sat around will our gov't took it's time to decide to send it....

And the equipment would sit around for years until it is needed again and by that time it would be too old to be of any use. Makes sense.

"No" everything in the Dart is used for training regularly and replaced regularily when it's broken or to old...the Dart uses the same equipment as the Army...New equipment is purchased when the gov't decides....

Again, there are better ways to provide aid than to pay a standing army to provide aid.

Unless the country you are providing the Aid to highjacks it all and sells it on the black market for more wpns....these countries understand one thing...the threat of force and having the political will to use it....

Also, should our people, including women and children, be thrown out into the street to pay for your pride?

Again the throwing of women and children into the streets you talk like this is a third world country where our streets are full of dead and dying women and children.....Canada is known world wide for it's moral values, it's compassion, it's fair treatment of all persons...this reputation and pride you talk about sir, is payed for in blood, sweat, tears and hard work of our countries soldiers.

Would it be to much to ask that we support them.