Hicksey Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 In my view, he's more of a neo-con than anything. In that, I mean that if you look at the CPOC policies you'll see that he's cherry-picked a couple of conservative ideals, but still mostly conforms to Canadian liberalism. The last conservative goverment was knocked for years and it is only now that people are finding out that the Liberals success regarding the economy and debt reduction are due to gifts bequeathed upon them by Mulroney/Campbell -- namely NAFTA and the GST. People constantly knock Mulroney's government for their utilization of deficit spending to finance our way out of the recession following the 1987 stock market crash. But I submit that if they had been given a chance to right it, they had legislated the tools they needed to give the Canadian economy a boost and the taxation needed to not only balance the budget but also provide for debt reduction. My point is that conservative ideas usually stand the test of time. I think Mike Harris is the one notable exception to the rule. His ideas have only gotten worse with time. He took the Liberal "band-aid" approach. Anyways, my question stands ... What about the conservative platform is so scary to Canadians? Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
shoop Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 Nothing about the Conservative platform is scary to Canadians. The Liberals used the scary scary scary strategy in 1997, 2000 and 2004. Granted, there may have been some truth to it in 2000. Regardless, it is just a strategy that they Liberals used to win elections. Harper has been brilliant in laying out the policies that will guide his government. People are looking for a positive change, and he is providing it. The last conservative goverment was knocked for years and it is only now that people are finding out that the Liberals success regarding the economy and debt reduction are due to gifts bequeathed upon them by Mulroney/Campbell -- namely NAFTA and the GST.Anyways, my question stands ... What about the conservative platform is so scary to Canadians? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote
Hicksey Posted January 3, 2006 Author Report Posted January 3, 2006 I know what you're saying. I've been harping on our local guy for years telling him that they need to beat Liberals to the punch and define themselves before the Liberals can unearth the "scary scary scary conservative card" in EVERY ELECTION. They've done a fairly good job, though I feel they've made a mistake in unearthing the gay marriage fight that most people had written off as lost anyway. Nothing about the Conservative platform is scary to Canadians.The Liberals used the scary scary scary strategy in 1997, 2000 and 2004. Granted, there may have been some truth to it in 2000. Regardless, it is just a strategy that they Liberals used to win elections. Harper has been brilliant in laying out the policies that will guide his government. People are looking for a positive change, and he is providing it. The last conservative goverment was knocked for years and it is only now that people are finding out that the Liberals success regarding the economy and debt reduction are due to gifts bequeathed upon them by Mulroney/Campbell -- namely NAFTA and the GST.Anyways, my question stands ... What about the conservative platform is so scary to Canadians? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
shoop Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 I agree with you about the marriage thing. You had to remember it was going to come up. Hell it was the first question on the English language debate. I think the Conservatives strategy of dealing with the issue early, and hoping that it fades away has paid off. A shrewd move that symbolizes the lessons they have learned. I know what you're saying. I've been harping on our local guy for years telling him that they need to beat Liberals to the punch and define themselves before the Liberals can unearth the "scary scary scary conservative card" in EVERY ELECTION. They've done a fairly good job, though I feel they've made a mistake in unearthing the gay marriage fight that most people had written off as lost anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote
The Honest Politician Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 I agree with you about the marriage thing. You had to remember it was going to come up. Hell it was the first question on the English language debate.I think the Conservatives strategy of dealing with the issue early, and hoping that it fades away has paid off. A shrewd move that symbolizes the lessons they have learned. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry no such luck. The Liberal guy who left the party over the SSM issue is part of some Marriage Organization and was just on CBC newsworld promising that SSM is very much an issue and they are going to make sure it stays an issue. Because they want people to vote for a party that wants to keep Marriage a Man and Women only thing. You ever have a dog that swims out to try and help you when you are swimming? What usually happens is while the dog is trying to swim it's paws and claws are pushing you under. Quote
scribblet Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 In my view, he's more of a neo-con than anything. In that, I mean that if you look at the CPOC policies you'll see that he's cherry-picked a couple of conservative ideals, but still mostly conforms to Canadian liberalism.The last conservative goverment was knocked for years and it is only now that people are finding out that the Liberals success regarding the economy and debt reduction are due to gifts bequeathed upon them by Mulroney/Campbell -- namely NAFTA and the GST. People constantly knock Mulroney's government for their utilization of deficit spending to finance our way out of the recession following the 1987 stock market crash. But I submit that if they had been given a chance to right it, they had legislated the tools they needed to give the Canadian economy a boost and the taxation needed to not only balance the budget but also provide for debt reduction. My point is that conservative ideas usually stand the test of time. I think Mike Harris is the one notable exception to the rule. His ideas have only gotten worse with time. He took the Liberal "band-aid" approach. Anyways, my question stands ... What about the conservative platform is so scary to Canadians? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't find any of them 'scary', I do disagree with some of them, but I don't see anything 'scary'. Maybe you could tell us what your definition of a neo-con is, from what I've read, they are liberals who became disillusioned with liberals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 70s. Since then, the term has become a cliche to describe anyone who's slightly to the right of a liberal, and is generally meant as a slur. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Hicksey Posted January 3, 2006 Author Report Posted January 3, 2006 Maybe you could tell us what your definition of a neo-con is, from what I've read, they are liberals who became disillusioned with liberals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 70s. Since then, the term has become a cliche to describe anyone who's slightly to the right of a liberal, and is generally meant as a slur. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Like the people you mentioned, I consider a neo-con to be someone who is really not conservative, just appears to be because he's got conservative views on a couple of mainstream issues. With the exception of gay-marriage, Harper supports most of the same socialist policies the Liberals and NDP do. He could never be a true conservative and get elected in Canada because conservatives do not believe in socialist policies like universal health care, social welfare, etc ... In Canada the term conservative is relative. Harper is conservative compared to both the Liberals and NDP. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
PocketRocket Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 neo=prefix meaning "new". con=abbreviation of "conservative" Being that the guy is purportedly onyl 46 years of age, it'd be pretty tough for him to be anything but a new conservative. "neocon" Another meaningless catch phrase. Quote I need another coffee
Hicksey Posted January 3, 2006 Author Report Posted January 3, 2006 Sorry no such luck. The Liberal guy who left the party over the SSM issue is part of some Marriage Organization and was just on CBC newsworld promising that SSM is very much an issue and they are going to make sure it stays an issue. Because they want people to vote for a party that wants to keep Marriage a Man and Women only thing. You ever have a dog that swims out to try and help you when you are swimming? What usually happens is while the dog is trying to swim it's paws and claws are pushing you under. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Marriage is a religious sacrament. As such the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I think that the definition of marriage before the law should be restored, but add civil unions for both non-religious hetro couples and for same sex couples. Because I believe strongly in human rights, the difference between the two should be nothing more than what they are called. Participants should have the same right in either. The only involvement the goverment should have in marriage is the law of marriage/civil unions and in their dissolving. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
PocketRocket Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 Marriage is a religious sacrament. As such the government should get out of the marriage business altogether......The only involvement the goverment should have in marriage is the law of marriage/civil unions and in their dissolving. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh PLEASE, there's got to be about a dozen threads already open on SSM. Let's not start it again HERE. If you feel that strongly about it that you feel you NEED to discuss it right now, then go revive one of those old threads, or start another on the topic. Quote I need another coffee
Hicksey Posted January 3, 2006 Author Report Posted January 3, 2006 Marriage is a religious sacrament. As such the government should get out of the marriage business altogether......The only involvement the goverment should have in marriage is the law of marriage/civil unions and in their dissolving. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh PLEASE, there's got to be about a dozen threads already open on SSM. Let's not start it again HERE. If you feel that strongly about it that you feel you NEED to discuss it right now, then go revive one of those old threads, or start another on the topic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not starting a debate here, but since it was brought up I stated my opinion for the record ... when I feel like having that debate I will do just that. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
daniel Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 How credible is it that a person in the last six months can throw away everything he's stood for and built since 1987 only to be more liberal than the Liberals? In May 2005 he was saying the amended Budget funding for municipalities was a deal with the devil. Then in June he's proposing tax breaks for people who take public transit. And when the election was called, his policy a day is throwing money around that his party just two years earlier would be saying back to him "People need a hand up, not a hand out." Lucky for him it was the Liberals rehashed that beer-and-popcorn remark originated from Mike Harris about five years earlier. Quote
justcrowing Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 Topic - Why is Harper so scary? I know ... * He wears a shirt & tie. * He does not flap his hands around like a seagull in flight. * He is young and has no wrinkles and under age 60. * He has no record of stealing from the public purse. * He is not a lawyer. * He is not a Liberal. * He is a family man. * He has values. * He is not a wealthy man. * He pays taxes in Canada like most ordinary citizens do. * He's a Westerner - shucks, can't have that, now can we? * He will be good for Canada and make a great Prime Minister. * He did not benefit from Adsacam nor from the other Liberal 198 scandals. * He did not "gut" medicare and other programs in order to produce a huge surplus. Quote
daniel Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 ...* He is not a Liberal. ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He might as well be. Have you seen his published policies? Quote
scribblet Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 Topic - Why is Harper so scary? I know ... * He wears a shirt & tie. * He does not flap his hands around like a seagull in flight. * He is young and has no wrinkles and under age 60. * He has no record of stealing from the public purse. * He is not a lawyer. * He is not a Liberal. * He is a family man. * He has values. * He is not a wealthy man. * He pays taxes in Canada like most ordinary citizens do. * He's a Westerner - shucks, can't have that, now can we? * He will be good for Canada and make a great Prime Minister. * He did not benefit from Adsacam nor from the other Liberal 198 scandals. * He did not "gut" medicare and other programs in order to produce a huge surplus. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Slim MacSquinty Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 quote: In May 2005 he was saying the amended Budget funding for municipalities was a deal with the devil. Then in June he's proposing tax breaks for people who take public transit. And when the election was called, his policy a day is throwing money around that his party just two years earlier would be saying back to him "People need a hand up, not a hand out." First of all he opposed the budget amendment because there is no jurisdictional relationship between municipalities and the federal governement, to create one is wrong, it is just a way for the feds to take credit for everything, pure politics. The gas tax money should just be given to the provinces based on the rate of collection on the stipulation that it is to be spent on infrastructure for which it was collected. For years the Libs have been collecting gas tax under false pretenses and spent NONE of it on the roads it was collected to maintain. furthermore they collect taxes on taxes for gas which I believe to be illegal and finally they added a temporary surcharge a few years back and have made killing on it, when asked to remove that surcharge when gas prices recently spiked to over $1/litre they refused. As for his promises, first he has a more broad based party he has to answer to and their policies are a reflection of this and their policy convention, second he is nowhere near the expenditure level that the Martinites doled out in their minibudget. By the way if you need further proof that Goodale's mini-budget was pure electioneering it was done without any consultation with the non-partisan budget committee. What has he announced that is a departure from the hand up as opposed to hand out philosophy? Quote
justcrowing Posted January 3, 2006 Report Posted January 3, 2006 ...* He is not a Liberal. ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He might as well be. Have you seen his published policies? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't need to - Liberals have long been known to steal policies of other parties. So what else is new? 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.