Conservative Spending - Out of Control

[Michael Bluth]

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.

Fair enough. The word shouldn't be used.

Get a grip.

Please don't insult me. I haven't insulted you.

Here is what you said.

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

You can split whatever semanitc hairs you want. But you compared the Canadian right to the US right. The only purpose of that was to use the antipathy many Canadians feel for GW Bush as a weapon against Stephen Harper. They aren't the same person and there was no honest reason to bring the US into the discussion.

[jdobbin]

You can split whatever semanitc hairs you want. But you compared the Canadian right to the US right. The only purpose of that was to use the antipathy many Canadians feel for GW Bush as a weapon against Stephen Harper. They aren't the same person and there was no honest reason to bring the US into the discussion.

I apologize if you were offended.

I never said George Bush. To his credit the man has never used offensive language when referring to minorities or gays and lesbians. I also never said Stephen Harper who has not used such language either.

I am referring to right wing supporters in both Canada and the U.S. who use offensive slurs and think it is okay. There are quite a few of those and you don't have to look far to find them.

[jbg]

Nonsense. Federal spending in the last years of Chretien/Turner rose faster than at any time since the war, faster even than under Trudeau.

I didn't know that John Napier Turner came back to power after Chretien left. Was he an interim PM twice?

[Michael Bluth]

I never said George Bush. To his credit the man has never used offensive language when referring to minorities or gays and lesbians. I also never said Stephen Harper who has not used such language either.

I am referring to right wing supporters in both Canada and the U.S. who use offensive slurs and think it is okay. There are quite a few of those and you don't have to look far to find them.

Fair enough.

But you should look at left wingers in both countries who refer to Harper and/or Bush as Nazis.

Such hyperbole is just as in appropriate and offensive.

[jdobbin]

Fair enough.

But you should look at left wingers in both countries who refer to Harper and/or Bush as Nazis.

Such hyperbole is just as in appropriate and offensive.

I have addressed that. I've also tried to refrain from getting in namecalling that drops to that level.

I sympathize with emotions getting carried away. We all need to take a deep breath every once in a while.

[Argus]

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?

Bzzzzz! No good! That was a major campaign plank and it replaced a similar profligate Liberal program, except with more choice and less government waste.

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

And we still have, so what're you bitching about?

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

I'm not partisan at all. I don't like the Liberals and NDP, not out of ideological concerns, but because the Liberals have proven they are dishonest, deceitful and incompetent - and the NDP policies are all aimed against me, and are economically idiotic to boot.

But that's not partisanship! That's just watching and judging. Bring in someone with honesty and integrity, and not a cynical, manipulative hack, and have him lead the Liberal party and I could see myself voting Liberal.

I admit that's unlikely to happen. People with honesty and integrity don't become Liberals, after all.

[Argus]

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?

Apparently, like much else in life, you are perfectly fine with using the word homo. You just aren't okay with a conservative using it. This is oddly amusing given how much in keeping it is with all the rest of your complaints. You are perfectly fine with Liberals doing it, but are appalled at Conservatives doing it. You long for an election to unseat the Conservatives so the liberals can come back and do the same things that outrage you - and you can then relax comfortably, no longer concerned with them.

For the record, one of yours said

Most true-blue rank and file would rationalize that in order to address the issues closest to their hearts (confronting the homos, revisiting abortion...

to which I responded

Neither abortion nor homos are at or even near the top of most conservatives' political agenda,

Your hypocrisy in ignoring the word when used by someone on your side of the fence, and then sniveling like an old woman because of my response is the mark of the typical Liberal faithful. It is crass, deceitful and pathetic.

[Catchme]

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.

Gotta love that "may or may not have been used" eh, jdobbin?

You are correct, people should not utilze words such as that.

[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?

Bzzzzz! No good! That was a major campaign plank and it replaced a similar profligate Liberal program, except with more choice and less government waste.

Except it produced 0 childcare spaces, which makes it a bigger waste than the Liberal program which would have atleast created spaces.

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

And we still have, so what're you bitching about?

Um you are the one "bitching", about Liberal spending. Nice use of the conservative tactic of trying to turning it around though.

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

I'm not partisan at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy crap that is about the funniest thing I have read on these boards.

LMAO Damn, but that is a good joke.

I'm still laughing hahahaha.

[Catchme]

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

For the record, one of yours said

Most true-blue rank and file would rationalize that in order to address the issues closest to their hearts (confronting the homos, revisiting abortion...

to which I responded

Neither abortion nor homos are at or even near the top of most conservatives' political agenda,

Your hypocrisy in ignoring the word when used by someone on your side of the fence, and then sniveling like an old woman because of my response is the mark of the typical Liberal faithful. It is crass, deceitful and pathetic.

One of his? Just what do you mean one of his?

Moreover, I take great exception to your use of gender and age degrading remarks. It is hard to try and make oneself above it all, and equal to those who use the word "homo", when you use such terms like: "sniveling like an old woman". It goes well beyond, crass, deceitful and pathetic and makes whatever else you say that might actually be valid, be of no consequence.

[stazy]

Techniquelly the Conservatives haven't spent a penny. The $10B or so Harper has given away this week is to be in the next budget. However, what are the chances of this budget actually passing? I'm guessing it's not very high.

These spending promises are meant to buy votes and probably won't ever be realized. If the Conservatives win a minority, they won't have to re-commit the $10B because it was part of a budget that triggered an election (This would actually make them look good). On the other hand, if the Conservatives manage to win a majority, then there are several excuses they can employ to defer their spending promises. And of course, there is always the possibility that Harper may lose the upcoming election...

[Saturn]

Techniquelly the Conservatives haven't spent a penny. The $10B or so Harper has given away this week is to be in the next budget. However, what are the chances of this budget actually passing? I'm guessing it's not very high.

That's the funny part - he's buying votes with promises he does not intend to keep. There are really only possibilities for him: 1) majority - he doesn't need to keep any promises, or 2) no majority - he's out the door and he doesn't need to keep any promises. At this point he can promise anything he wants.

[geoffrey]

That's the funny part - he's buying votes with promises he does not intend to keep. There are really only possibilities for him: 1) majority - he doesn't need to keep any promises, or 2) no majority - he's out the door and he doesn't need to keep any promises. At this point he can promise anything he wants.

Your spot on. I, however, think Harper will be fairly moderate in this governing in the case of a majority. He's a power hungry guy, he'll want to be back for term #3.

[jdobbin]

Apparently, like much else in life, you are perfectly fine with using the word homo. You just aren't okay with a conservative using it. This is oddly amusing given how much in keeping it is with all the rest of your complaints. You are perfectly fine with Liberals doing it, but are appalled at Conservatives doing it. You long for an election to unseat the Conservatives so the liberals can come back and do the same things that outrage you - and you can then relax comfortably, no longer concerned with them.

For the record, one of yours said

Most true-blue rank and file would rationalize that in order to address the issues closest to their hearts (confronting the homos, revisiting abortion...

to which I responded

Neither abortion nor homos are at or even near the top of most conservatives' political agenda,

Your hypocrisy in ignoring the word when used by someone on your side of the fence, and then sniveling like an old woman because of my response is the mark of the typical Liberal faithful. It is crass, deceitful and pathetic.

I addressed the out of line comment if you care to look. You rose to the bait and repeated the slur.

[madmax]

Government debt is largely irrelevant. So too a government budget deficit or surplus.

I disagree with this, it reminds me of Dick Cheneys view of economics and the current US situation. I don't find a comfort zone believing that Debt is largely irrellavant.

However I do agree wit you that

IMV, Harper is spending money like a drunken sailor who has found a wallet.

[daniel]

I wouldn't be surprised if Harper ends up George-Bushing this country.

[August1991]

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".

And that's about what your argument amounts to, Argus: The Tories are not as bad as the Liberals were.

That's like saying a thief is innocent because he only stole one TV while his guilty partner took two. It's not an argument at all.

Look, if Harper wants to spend a billion or so on big airplanes, I think he should at least have the decency to cut $1 billion in spending elsewhere to pay for his choice. Instead, he just tacked the planes on to other spending. This, along with his other new spending, means that government spending is increasing faster than economic growth. The federal government is taking a bigger chunk of the pie.

Why is Harper doing this? Because he can. Alot of simple-minded Canadians (eg. you) think that as long as the federal budget is not in deficit, the minister of Finance is a sterling man.

Well, the federal government is collecting tax dollars at an unprecedented rate. When the economy grows as now, tax money flows in at the marginal rate. And Harper is just spending it all.

I didn't vote for this and somebody some day in the future is going to have to stop this government juggernaut.

Government debt is largely irrelevant. So too a government budget deficit or surplus.

I disagree with this, it reminds me of Dick Cheneys view of economics and the current US situation. I don't find a comfort zone believing that Debt is largely irrellavant.

Read this.

[Moonlight Graham]

So you thinking spending is out of control, yet you don't care much about the debt? So what do you want to happen to the money being spend? Are you saying you want taxes lowered?

Government debt is largely irrelevant. So too a government budget deficit or surplus.

When politicians claim to be competent because they balance the budget, they are lying.

Politicians have access to the extensive wealth of Canada and all Canadians. Given such power, talk of governmment borrowing, deficit, surplus is irrelevant. (This economic idea is unfortunately a source of serious confusion in Canada, both French and English.)

The only thing that matters is government spending. What do politicians buy on our behalf? Their competence should be measured by what they buy. Politicians are our buying agents.

IMV, Harper is spending money like a drunken sailor who has found a wallet.

So you want Harper to spend less & spend more competently? I think thats what you're saying. If this is true, i can't imagine how you felt about the Liberals during their last 13 or so reign. Or Trudeau.

[daniel]

...So you want Harper to spend less & spend more competently? I think thats what you're saying. If this is true, i can't imagine how you felt about the Liberals during their last 13 or so reign. Or Trudeau.

It wasn't Mulroney or Harper who got the Canadian budget back in the red with healthy surplusses. Pearson and Trudeau made Canada the respected Nation it was when Harper took over.

[Michael Bluth]

It wasn't Mulroney or Harper who got the Canadian budget back in the red with healthy surplusses.

Just like you said you didn't mind the Conservatives if they implemented Liberal and NDP policies.

People on the right didn't mind Chrétien implementing conservative fiscal policies.

Both were done to keep power. The Liberals had no issue with it, why should Conservatives?

It's all just politics my friend...

[PolyNewbie]

They want to make the country go broke. All the leaders of the western countries are globalists and they are in positions to destroy their own countries for the corporations and bankers. In our case they are creating the North American Union and corps & bankers are writing the legislation for it. Politicians are signing it without reading it. When its over we have no borders and powerless politicians. We will be at the mercy of the corporations more that we are now.

[stazy]

They want to make the country go broke. All the leaders of the western countries are globalists and they are in positions to destroy their own countries for the corporations and bankers. In our case they are creating the North American Union and corps & bankers are writing the legislation for it. Politicians are signing it without reading it. When its over we have no borders and powerless politicians. We will be at the mercy of the corporations more that we are now.

These types of statements are baseless. Politicians are too smart to hand over their power. Furthermore, globalization has been around forever and borders still exist. How do you expect it to abolish borders in the future.

[daniel]

...

People on the right didn't mind Chrétien implementing conservative fiscal policies.

Both were done to keep power. The Liberals had no issue with it, why should Conservatives?

It's all just politics my friend...

But the people on the right DID mind. Preston Manning and the others kept saying that Martin's budget cuts didn't go far enough. And then they kept complaining about the budget surplusses. (Now after 13years of the Liberals' conservative-like budgets, Conservatives point the finger at the Liberals for not implementing Kyoto at a time when the Conservatives were fighting Kyoto every step of the way.)

But Moonlight Graham's remark was implying that during the 13years of Liberals, spending was out-of-control. Which was untrue. Jim Flaherty tried to make this false accusation as well.

[Michael Bluth]

But the people on the right DID mind. Preston Manning and the others kept saying that Martin's budget cuts didn't go far enough. And then they kept complaining about the budget surplusses. (Now after 13years of the Liberals' conservative-like budgets, Conservatives point the finger at the Liberals for not implementing Kyoto at a time when the Conservatives were fighting Kyoto every step of the way.)

Just like the Liberals and NDP are trying to say the Conservatives aren't going far enough on Kyoto and childcare.

Fighting Kyoto ever step of the way? How?

The Liberals had a majority for 12 of those 13 years and they still didn't do anything on Kyoto...

[stazy]

But Moonlight Graham's remark was implying that during the 13years of Liberals, spending was out-of-control. Which was untrue. Jim Flaherty tried to make this false accusation as well.

Perhaps it wasn't out of control, but it was certainly unscrupulous and misdirected; especially in the Liberal's last few years in power.