Conservative Spending - Out of Control

[jdobbin]

Gee, here are a bunch of liberal supporters whining about high spending - and all they've got to come back with when I ask for examples is "Prove to us how our wonderful liberals were worse".

Actually all you have moaned about is that the Tories make the right sort of spending (even if it is way over what they said it would be).

[sideshow]

The conservatives, just like the liberals have it all wrong.

You should always pay your debts before making more purchases. We will pay interest on the national debt forever and ever. With these surpluses, they should ONLY pay the debt. As far as I am concerned, take the EI fund surplus, get rid of the Indian Act, sell the land to the Natives once and for all, tax them, cut most of the welfare that is thrown away to people that dont need it, tax the rich more, stop foreign aid, bring home the military, stop the feel good national, provincial, and municipal projects, and put all the money on the national debt. buck up, tighten our belts, and pay what we spent-decades ago and still paying interest on.

government wastes way too much money that we give them. the sponsorship scandal is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Argus]

That depends entirely on the attitude of whomever we're discussing things. If I'm responding to someone who is pouring scorn and contempt on me or my beliefs - esp without an iota of support - then I will respond in kind.

I found nothing in that quote which contradicts what the Tories are doing, which included the need to better support infrastructure and to maintain existing agreements with the provinces and territories. I think you and the others also have to differentiate between program spending, which is the real problem, and capital spending on such things as purchases of military equipment.

I have no idea whose scorn forced you to use a slur.

Perhaps you ought to read more closely, and also tell me what slur I used.

The Tories said they would control *all* spending.

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/200...675995-sun.html

New estimates show spending is set to rise 6% to $211.7 billion in 2007-08 over estimates a year ago. Much of the growth comes from new defence spending and Conservative programs, such as the $100-a-month Child Care Benefit.

I see, so your last quote proved nothing, so you've got a new one which also proves nothing. Good job! Most of the growth, according to your own quote, is in capital spending on much needed military gear which the Liberals kept postponing because they didn't give a damn about the military. As for the child care program - if the Liberals were in power we'd be spending the same or more, so what exactly is your complaint? The child care program was in their campaign and is certainly no surprise.

[Argus]

Gee, here are a bunch of liberal supporters whining about high spending - and all they've got to come back with when I ask for examples is "Prove to us how our wonderful liberals were worse".

Actually all you have moaned about is that the Tories make the right sort of spending (even if it is way over what they said it would be).

Translation:

Uh oh. I really have no idea what the tories have spent, or what the liberals spent. I'm just whining because I hate them. Now what? Hmm, better try to weasel out of it.

[Who's Doing What?]

Find a wasteful, profligate program the tories came up with and tell us about it.

The poor excuse for a childcare program, for one. Only months into the program and the cost is in the billions. So they spent billions and guess what? Kids still need daycare spaces. Who'd of thunk it?

Most people who knew anything about conservatives - or politics - or history, would say that rationalizing would be on the basis of the country being better off with Tories in power, even if they do spend a little money they'd rather not, than with Liberals in power spending lots more, and stealing most of the rest while providing do-nothing, incompetent government to boot.

Ya the Liberals spent so much money we only had several years of billions in surplus.

Your blind partisanship, and outright hatred of anything Liberal is a joke. It undermines any rational point you may be lucky enough to make.

[Michael Bluth]

Like the right in the U.S., it looks like the right here can't say anything without putting a slur in to it.

Hmmm, yet another attempt to equate the *scary* Republicans with the *scary* Conservative Party of Canada.

They are different parties, yet your smear tries to tie anti-Bush feelings to Stephen Harper.

So is only the left allowed to smear?

If you really want to raise the level of debate take a look at your own posts.

[Who's Doing What?]

Like the right in the U.S., it looks like the right here can't say anything without putting a slur in to it.

Hmmm, yet another attempt to equate the *scary* Republicans with the *scary* Conservative Party of Canada.

They are different parties, yet your smear tries to tie anti-Bush feelings to Stephen Harper.

So is only the left allowed to smear.

Haven't you noticed?

Harper has become a Lefty.

[jdobbin]

Hmmm, yet another attempt to equate the *scary* Republicans with the *scary* Conservative Party of Canada.

They are different parties, yet your smear tries to tie anti-Bush feelings to Stephen Harper.

So is only the left allowed to smear.

So you are okay on using the word homo in a forum just as Anne Coulter uses the word faggot as a slur?

And I was not specifically referring to Harper but one of his supporters in this forum.

[Michael Bluth]

So you are okay on using the word homo in a forum just as Anne Coulter uses the word faggot as a slur?

And I was not specifically referring to Harper but one of his supporters in this forum.

False analogy.

You didn't make that clear you weren't referring to Harper. Your post had the "unintended" effect of smearing Harper by associaiton.

How about posting the word used so we can judge?

[jdobbin]

Perhaps you ought to read more closely, and also tell me what slur I used.

I see, so your last quote proved nothing, so you've got a new one which also proves nothing. Good job! Most of the growth, according to your own quote, is in capital spending on much needed military gear which the Liberals kept postponing because they didn't give a damn about the military. As for the child care program - if the Liberals were in power we'd be spending the same or more, so what exactly is your complaint? The child care program was in their campaign and is certainly no surprise.

The word used was homos. It was used as a slur. Maybe you ought to read what you write.

And now you do what you always do and say the Liberals would have done worse.

The Canadians Taypayers Association mentioned how spending was already waaay over what the Tories promised on February 28. Since then there has been a flurry of announcements that goes beyond that.

[jdobbin]

False analogy.

You didn't make that clear you weren't referring to Harper. Your post had the "unintended" effect of smearing Harper by associaiton.

How about posting the word used so we can judge?

The word was homo and it was Argus's response. You are okay with that?

[Michael Bluth]

The word used was homos. It was used as a slur. Maybe you ought to read what you write.

And now you do what you always do and say the Liberals would have done worse.

The Canadians Taypayers Association mentioned how spending was already waaay over what the Tories promised on February 28. Since then there has been a flurry of announcements that goes beyond that.

Where was this post?

Or are we to take your word that it exists?

[jdobbin]

Translation:

Uh oh. I really have no idea what the tories have spent, or what the liberals spent. I'm just whining because I hate them. Now what? Hmm, better try to weasel out of it.

Translation: you really are whining. All you do is say the Liberals would do worse. That really doesn't account for their own broken promise of containing spending.

[jdobbin]

Most people who knew anything about conservatives - or politics - or history, would say that rationalizing would be on the basis of the country being better off with Tories in power, even if they do spend a little money they'd rather not, than with Liberals in power spending lots more, and stealing most of the rest while providing do-nothing, incompetent government to boot. Neither abortion nor *homos* are at or even near the top of most conservatives' political agenda, but the political philosophies of most liberals and leftists are so shallow and poorly thought out that demonizing those who believe differently is all they appear capable of.

There is the word. I take it you have no problem with it being used as a slur.

[jdobbin]

Where was this post?

Or are we to take your word that it exists?

If you had even gone back two or three posts, you would see it.

And now that you do see it in the post above this, you are probably okay with it.

[Michael Bluth]

If you had even gone back two or three posts, you would see it.

And now that you do see it in the post above this, you are probably okay with it.

So you try and hide the issue of your false analogy between Stephen Harper's Conservatives with some epithet that may or may not have been used.

Just type the post #, if it is in this thread and actually posting a link is too much for you...

[Who's Doing What?]

If you had even gone back two or three posts, you would see it.

And now that you do see it in the post above this, you are probably okay with it.

So you try and hide the issue of your false analogy between Stephen Harper's Conservatives with some epithet that may or may not have been used.

Just type the post #, if it is in this thread and actually posting a link is too much for you...

LMAO

[jdobbin]

LMAO

I give up. Can he not see the post in the one *immediately* above the one he has replied to?

[jdobbin]

So you try and hide the issue of your false analogy between Stephen Harper's Conservatives with some epithet that may or may not have been used.

Just type the post #, if it is in this thread and actually posting a link is too much for you...

It was post 18 and I pointed it out in post 39. You replied to post 40 and didn't even read the message above it where it was *starred*.

Just so we're clear. Calling someone a homo is a slur.

If you believe that Harper's supporters shouldn't use this word, then speak up now.

[Keepitsimple]

If a government is going to spend money, it's only wise to spend it at times that they can collect "political capital". The Conservatives might indeed use it to "force" an election....but on the other hand, they might just be trying to lay the groundwork so that their budget will pass....in other words, make it very, very difficult for the opposition to vote against the budget. I am firmly in the camp of the latter. I think Harper is confident that as long as he is able to "get some things done", the longer he stays in power, the more comfortable the electorate will become. I don't think he is worried about Dion suddenly becoming a powerful leader. I think he'll be satisfied to govern another year and maybe precipitate an election in early 2008.

As for all these expenditures, I tend to look at each one and ask a couple of questions:

1) Was the money included in the last budget and they have decided to spend now?

2) Is the money a reasonable, strategic investment tied to the next budget?

3) If neither of the above, then there have to be serious questions asked.

The major recent announcements have involved:

1) Transit/Infrastructure for Ontario (and other provinces). These were included as a block amount in the previous budget - Ontario/Ottawa have been working for some time on this. Cities are crying out loud for this type of expenditure. I expect there might be an ongoing committment of some sort in the upcoming budget.

2) Eco-Trust - $1.5 billion for the provinces. A new priority demanded by Canadians and will be included in the next budget. Probably the first peg in a continuous funding program for the environment. Canadians wanted action.....well, it's started.

3) $1 billion for farmers. Promised in last election.

Smart politics but also reasonably spent money......although I'm sure many will disagree.

[Michael Bluth]

It was post 18 and I pointed it out in post 39. You replied to post 40 and didn't even read the message above it where it was *starred*.

Just so we're clear. Calling someone a homo is a slur.

If you believe that Harper's supporters shouldn't use this word, then speak up now.

Unless post # 18 has been edited in the past four minutes the slur wasn't there when you posted your response.

I saw where you pointed it out, but haven't seen the word actually used.

I'll reserve my judgement on whether or not anybody should use the word when you can actually show where somebody used it.

If you believe that it is wrong to falsely accuse people of using certain words and to make false analogies between parties in two different countries speak up now.

[Topaz]

IF the government as soooooooo much money than why not cut back on IE premiums, cut some of the taxes on gasoline, in other words give back more to the middle-income than to give to certain groups that you want to buy their votes! So, far the only thing I've benefited from if the GST on groceries! I think were he is going to trouble money-wise is the buying of the military equipment and Afghanistan. I'm going to write the back-bencher for my area and ask for a report on the military TOTAL spending on equipment and the war.

[jdobbin]

Unless post # 18 has been edited in the past four minutes the slur wasn't there when you posted your response.

I saw where you pointed it out, but haven't seen the word actually used.

I'll reserve my judgement on whether or not anybody should use the word when you can actually show where somebody used it.

If you believe that it is wrong to falsely accuse people of using certain words and to make false analogies between parties in two different countries speak up now.

It is still in post 18, second paragraph of Argus' response. I never mentioned anything about parties. I said right wing.

[Michael Bluth]

It is still in post 18, second paragraph of Argus' response. I never mentioned anything about parties. I said right wing.

So you were referring to post #7. That poster was railing *against* the Conservative Government. Yes I find it offensive if somebody who opposes the Conservative Government uses the term homo. See honesty isn't that tough.

Are you trying to say you weren't trying to draw an analogy between the Conservatives and the Republicans? Remember how easy it is to be honest...

[jdobbin]

So you were referring to post #7. That poster was railing *against* the Conservative Government. Yes I find it offensive if somebody who opposes the Conservative Government uses the term homo. See honesty isn't that tough.

Are you trying to say you weren't trying to draw an analogy between the Conservatives and the Republicans? Remember how easy it is to be honest...

And those that support the Tories, can use the word homo? Be honest.

I find the word offensive when used as a slur by anyone. And I don't recall saying Conservative or Republican. Get a grip. I said right wing anti-gay slurs are offensive. I think Vancouver King's use of the word to bait a right wing poster is also out of line.