The real question (for some) would be their political persuasions. Let me guess - 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans, right?
PS - Would that make the response to the suggestion "Go f*ck yourself" legal in Texas now?
Liberal phobia and the cause….
- Thread starter Socrates the Greek
- Start date
The real question (for some) would be their political persuasions. Let me guess - 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans, right?
PS - Would that make the response to the suggestion "Go f*ck yourself" legal in Texas now?
If memory serves, I believe Chretien was also in power during the .com meltdown. I worked with folks af all political stripes who made out like bandits prior to that, at least one of whom lost $375,000 in one day. Whose fault do you think that is? Do you think liberals could have stopped it? I don't blame Clinton entirely for the mess we are presently in, but he did set the wheels in motion for the housing crunch by allowing such lenient lending practices, and Bush did nothing to reign in dubious investment practices.
When you raise interest rates to over 22% only an idiot would not be able to predict what will follow. Mulroney took similar action, with a similar result, these actions are certainly blameworthy.
You just love to assign blame to conservatives, don't you. The economy is a complex thing. Far too complex for governments to manage. Their job is to referee, to set rules of fair play and ensure that corporations, investment firms and such act prudently. The minute a government starts dabbleing in the actual workings of the economy bad things follow. I have worked at disseminating many accident reports, the purpose being to find causes, (and there are usually 3 or more), thear are always ones who wish to find one cause and say, "its his/her fault". This is extremely counter productive, much as yourself simply blaming conservatives, when there is plenty of fault to go around.
That sounds like a threat of violence and name calling Cliffy.
I wonder why you would say such a thing and why SJP wouldn't put you on ignore, instead of just supporting this obvious violation of the forum rules?
:lol:
That would be pertinent if we were discussing American Conservatism. Which of course we are not.
You're continued correlation between Canadian and American Conservatism is erroneous if not ridiculous. Canadian Conservatism is far closer to the US Democrats, then it is to the Republicans.
I think I covered most of that in my previous post. And I believe I said that the chance of a leader who serves two terms is quite high that they will experience an economic downturn. It's just the law of averages, we were lucky to go up to ten years before we had one under Chretien. You do however assume a lot, and as a last resort you turn to name calling. You show how polarized you are as you continue to pidgeon hole and cherry pick. It seems, to you at least, that anyone who so much as agrees with anything Harper does, becomes an acolyte.
But if you remember, Harper was chastised by the opposition for not earmarking enough stimulus money for our current situation. Are you going to blame him for not spending more? Throwing good money after bad may be good politics, but bad economics.
He's also completely nucking futs. He does have a phobia or three, perhaps even ten.
Yes, so it is not surprising that ironsides thinks Beck is the cat's ass or that conservatives paid him to make noises at them.
Just a quick reminder, the PC's were split three ways between the original PC's and the defectors to the Reform and the Bloc. Chretien would have won even if he grew horns and a tail, as I suppose you believe Harper has, (but he only puts them on for special occaions :lol
.
Cliffy, I'm surprised at you, you must know that unless you're armed you are the most defenseless creature in the bush. But to sort of stay on topic, liberals do like to keep us defenseless.
Wrong. Five Republicans (three conservative, two moderate), four Democrats. Some of the antics of Bible Belt conservatives are too much even for moderate Republicans.
I lived in the bush for ten years and commercially picked mushrooms for twenty, and I was never attacked by a wild animal once. I never carried a weapon, bear spray or bells.
Humans, on the other hand, are completely unpredictable and dangerous, with or without weapons, and any politician is a potential threat to everybody, no matter what political stripe they are.
I have to concur, you do always have to put the blame on the conservatives, even though thy make up such a minority of our government. Bush didn't have the mentality or the power to crash the economy. There were 535 other people who played a big part in it, not to mention those we know nothing or very little about who also had something to do with it.
YOu are like a breath of fresh air, Bob- I respect ALL opinions what I don't respect is the same 8 or 10 sentences being repeated over and over ad infinitim (if you know what I mean) I don't see a response to post #449, so maybe he's bogged down for awhile. :lol::lol::lol:
I too have worked in the bush, but I have also been surrounded by by packs of wild dogs, had a couple of staredowns with bears and such, many folks have come out on the losing side, including some who have grown up in the bush. I was only saying, contrary to popular belief, when unarmed we are more defenseless than the other critters that occupy our shared living space, I thought you would've aggreed with that.
We should however have some defense against politicians.
Indeed. And what did Chretien do during the dot com meltdown? While your beloved Harper jumped at the first excuse to run a deficit, Chretien kept running a healthy surplus throughout the dot com meltdown. He did not follow Bush's example of running huge deficits.
Are you talking of losing money in the stock market? If you lose money in the stock market, it is entirely your own fault (and if you earn money it is to your credit), you have no business to blame anybody for it. I have been investing in stocks for 15 years, and that is how it works. It is generous of you not to blame Chretien though, it is rare that a conservative does not blame liberals for evrything.
You don’t blame Clinton completely for Bush meltdown, blame him only partly? My, my aren’t you being generous. It is not every day that a conservative does not blame a liberal for everything.
Of course, the fact that you seem to blame everyone except Bush for the meltdown shows your conservative bias. According to you, Bush was guilty only of minor offense, in that he did not reverse Clinton policies, which caused the Bush meltdown. So the fault for the Bush meltdown really goes to Clinton, doesn’t’ it? Does it also go to Obama and Carter, as most conservatives maintain?
Quite so, Bush was blameless in the current huge meltdown (he gets only minor blame), but Trudeau was totally responsible for his miserable economic performance. And you still claim you are not a Bush/Harper acolyte?
I blame whoever is in power. Thus I do not excuse Trudeau for his miserable economic performance. You however, exclusively seem to blame liberals, no matter who is in power. Thus Bush meltdown is Clinton's fault, Bush is blameless for the economic meltdown.
Thus according to you, the fact that your beloved Harper is running the biggest deficit in Canadian history is the fault of the Liberals, even though Harper is the PM.
Indeed. like you claiming that it is always the fault of the liberals, even when conservatives are in power. (blaming Clinton for Bush meltdown, blaming Liberals for Harper deficit).