Liberal phobia and the cause….

[JLM]

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).

This argument is getting boring and SO stupid. Why can't we just all agree with the truth- politicians are all tarred with the same brush, none of them are blameless, they all have their moments of corruptness and some of them have moments of benevolence too. No party is more or less guilty (over the long haul) than any other. For now we have Harper, the jury is still out on him, but if he's not up to snuff there will be an election eventually. :smile::smile:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

Indeed. and my question to you was, now many downturns did Clinton have in his eight years? How many di L iberals have in their 13 years? The answer is, none.

It's just the law of averages, we were lucky to go up to ten years before we had one under Chretien.

I see. so because Chretien was a liberal, he got lucky. If he was a conservative, you would shout his achievement from the rooftop. So really what you are saying is, whenever a liberal puts in strong economic performance, he got lucky. Whenever a conservative puts in poor economic performance (which is most of the time), it is the fault fo the liberals.

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.

Are you referring to me calling you an acolyte? Well, it is not name calling, it is the usage adopted in serious journalism. It is a descriptive term, lace liberally with sarcasm and satire. And you indeed are an acolyte, I will explain in a separate post.

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.

Oh, most certainly I can blame Harper. He is the PM, he is responsible for everything that happens under his watch. The buck stops with him (or perhaps you would say that the buck stops with him only if it is something good, if it is something bad, the buck stops with the liberals).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Bob, let me explain to you the difference between an acolyte and a partisan. A conservative partisan would try to defend Harper’s economic performance. He would claim that the deficit was thrust on him, he really didn’t have any choice in the matter (and I would agree with him partially) and express the confidence that when the economy is sorted out, Harper will balance the budget (with which I would disagree, no conservative politician has balanced the budget in recent memory).

But he won’t try to argue that the budget is the fault of the Liberals. He knows that such an argument will sound lame, even ridiculous come election time. He is loyal to his party and he tries to promote the interests of the party.

An acolyte however, is loyal to a person more than to the party. Thus, a Harper acolyte thinks that Harper cannot do any wrong. So if something undesirable happens, by definition somebody else is at fault. Who can that somebody be? Why, Liberals, of course.

Now, yesterday I only posed the question, are you sure you are not an acolyte. But today when you blamed Clinton for Bush meltdown, that removed any doubt from my mind. You sir, are indeed a Bush/Harper acolyte.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This argument is getting boring and SO stupid. Why can't we just all agree with the truth- politicians are all tarred with the same brush, none of them are blameless, they all have their moments of corruptness and some of them have moments of benevolence too. No party is more or less guilty (over the long haul) than any other. For now we have Harper, the jury is still out on him, but if he's not up to snuff there will be an election eventually. :smile::smile:

I see, so you don't really have any problem with Bob's (conservative) posts, he started the argument with me. But you only have a problem with my (liberal) response to it. Now why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

So was the vote on the left, it was split between liberals and NDP, so what is your point? For that matter currently the left vote is split three ways, between Liberals, NDP and Bloc (Bloc is a party of the left these days, its policies are virtually identical to those of NDP), while the right is solidly united. So why isn’t Harper getting a majority, why is he struggling even to hold on to the minority? He is running neck and neck with Liberals in the opinion polls.

Vote splitting is simply an excuse. There has been vote splitting on the left for generations, that doesn’t prevent liberals from winning elections.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

So it is the fault of Obama, Clinton and Carter, is it? And Bush didn't have mentality? Do you mean that he was such a good person at heart that he was incapable of causing the meltdown? The Messiah/acolyte complex again? Or are you saying that he was too dumb to engineer something like that? But obviously that cannot be true, Americans elected him twice.

Or are you finally admitting that Americans elected somebody too dumb to be the president, twice?

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Now, yesterday I only posed the question, are you sure you are not an acolyte. But today when you blamed Clinton for Bush meltdown, that removed any doubt from my mind. You sir, are indeed a Bush/Harper acolyte.

Maybe you should learn to read, even your own posts, even if I do assign some blame to Clinton, it is a far stretch for me to be a Bush/Harper acolyte, (was this a term constantly used in your chuch by chance?) You are so busy blaming everything conservative you have become quite myopic, it really shows.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

So it is the fault of Obama, Clinton and Carter, is it? And Bush didn't have mentality? Do you mean that he was such a good person at heart that he was incapable of causing the meltdown? The Messiah/acolyte complex again?

Are you that smart that you can think you have all the answers and can blame one person, or are you that simple that believe it can be the fault of one person? You do seem to have a narrow view of your surroundings. I think the complex may be yours and yours alone.

Or are you finally admitting that Americans elected somebody too dumb to be the president, twice?

I have neither confirmed nor denied it, nor is it my place to admit anything, that I think he is/was a buffoon has been made clear in the past.

 

[AnnaG]

We should however have some defense against politicians.

Good luck with finding a decent one. The only one we have is the vote and it is infrequent, not reliable, etc.



BTW, you people, this thread is about Liberals and some phobia concerning them, not Clinton, Bush, etc. If Porky starts gibbering about the USA, Bush, Clinton, etc., ignore him.

 

[JLM]

Bob, let me explain to you the difference between an acolyte and a partisan. A conservative partisan would try to defend Harper’s economic performance. He would claim that the deficit was thrust on him, he really didn’t have any choice in the matter (and I would agree with him partially) and express the confidence that when the economy is sorted out, Harper will balance the budget (with which I would disagree, no conservative politician has balanced the budget in recent memory).

But he won’t try to argue that the budget is the fault of the Liberals. He knows that such an argument will sound lame, even ridiculous come election time. He is loyal to his party and he tries to promote the interests of the party.

An acolyte however, is loyal to a person more than to the party. Thus, a Harper acolyte thinks that Harper cannot do any wrong. So if something undesirable happens, by definition somebody else is at fault. Who can that somebody be? Why, Liberals, of course.

Now, yesterday I only posed the question, are you sure you are not an acolyte. But today when you blamed Clinton for Bush meltdown, that removed any doubt from my mind. You sir, are indeed a Bush/Harper acolyte.

No but I could argue it's the fault of the Liberals, not only Federally but provincially too as they were the ones who off loaded debt on to the provinces. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[bobnoorduyn]

So was the vote on the left, it was split between liberals and NDP, so what is your point? For that matter currently the left vote is split three ways, between Liberals, NDP and Bloc (Bloc is a party of the left these days, its policies are virtually identical to those of NDP), while the right is solidly united. So why isn’t Harper getting a majority, why is he struggling even to hold on to the minority? He is running neck and neck with Liberals in the opinion polls.

Vote splitting is simply an excuse. There has been vote splitting on the left for generations, that doesn’t prevent liberals from winning elections.

I'm not talking about left - right, it was actually the conservative vote that was split, i.e. PC's and Reform, one party that became two, three if you include the Bloc. Undecided and disaffected voters drift from party to party, but Liberal and NDP have their faithful core following and have not been split, and they didn't win the last couple times.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Good luck with finding a decent one. The only one we have is the vote and it is infrequent, not reliable, etc.



BTW, you people, this thread is about Liberals and some phobia concerning them, not Clinton, Bush, etc. If Porky starts gibbering about the USA, Bush, Clinton, etc., ignore him.

Yeah, but its kind of like trying to ignore a stable fly.

 

[JLM]

Yeah, but its kind of like trying to ignore a stable fly.

Or a carbuncle on the $ss.................:lol::lol:

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Harpers new nick name is"You are what we call in Alaska, a pansy,"

The Canadian Press: Pot, Palin and prorogation: Harper gets grilled on YouTube

 

[Socrates the Greek]

here is Harper protecting the work force:roll::roll::roll:, hard working Canadians if you work for a minimum wage vote this idiots out if you want to get your life back..

"On the economy, bald and goateed Martyman500 from Markham, Ont., looked straight into the camera and asked the prime minister why he was bringing in the Harmonized Sales Tax: "Why do you let big companies hire and fire workers so they have to avoid paying benefits?"

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Are you that smart that you can think you have all the answers and can blame one person, or are you that simple that believe it can be the fault of one person? You do seem to have a narrow view of your surroundings. I think the complex may be yours and yours alone.



I have neither confirmed nor denied it, nor is it my place to admit anything, that I think he is/was a buffoon has been made clear in the past.

What is it with you, bob? The post was not even addressed to you, it was in response to a post by ironsides. If he has any comments on it, he will get back to me, or do you presume to speak for him?

You neither confirm or deny it? Why should you? I didn't ask you to confirm or deny it. The post was not addressed to you.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Maybe you should learn to read, even your own posts, even if I do assign some blame to Clinton, it is a far stretch for me to be a Bush/Harper acolyte, (was this a term constantly used in your chuch by chance?) You are so busy blaming everything conservative you have become quite myopic, it really shows.

Now, whether you are an acolyte is a matter of opinion, isn't it? And I am not busy blaming conservatives, I blame whoever is in power. It is not my fault that conservatives invariably end up screwing up the economy. Reagan, two Bushes, Mulroney, Mike Harris, Harper (to the extent that he is running the biggest deficit in the history of Canada) etc.

In my opinion, anybody blaming Bush meltdown on Clinton (the Bush meltdown occurred 7 years after Clinton left office, now I understand how conservatives also blame Carter for the meltdown, if they can blame somebody who left office 7 years ago, surely they can blame somebody who left office 30 years ago) is being purely partisan and purely absurd.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No but I could argue it's the fault of the Liberals, not only Federally but provincially too as they were the ones who off loaded debt on to the provinces. :lol::lol::lol:

A conservative blaming Liberals. Big surprise there. Liberals had to make many difficult choices, take many unpleasant decisions when they balanced the budget, offloading some programs onto the provinces was one of them.

Nobody said that balancing the budget is easy, it is going to make many people mad. But the point is, liberals have the guts to take unpopular decisions and balance the budget. Conservatives have only one solution to any economic problem, cut the taxes and raise the debt and the deficit.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm not talking about left - right, it was actually the conservative vote that was split, i.e. PC's and Reform, one party that became two, three if you include the Bloc. Undecided and disaffected voters drift from party to party, but Liberal and NDP have their faithful core following and have not been split, and they didn't win the last couple times.

Well, if the vote splitting does not affect the left (there is perpetual vote splitting between Liberals and NDP), why should it bother the right? Vote splitting is a fact of life. there definitely was vote splitting on the left as well as on the right when liberals won three majorities.

 

[countryboy]

What is it with you, bob? The post was not even addressed to you, it was in response to a post by ironsides. If he has any comments on it, he will get back to me, or do you presume to speak for him?

You neither confirm or deny it? Why should you? The post was not addressed to you.

And this one wasn't addressed to me. However, here I am. I didn't realize we had ironclad rules about this "open" forum so I am concerned that I might have stepped out of line sometime in the past, and I wish to clarify this rule in order to avoid being chastized for such an oversight. I know you have far more experience here, so could you please spell out the policy on commenting for me?

Secondly, I respectfully suggest that when you're going to discipline someone for breaking a policy or rule, that your reach inward to your natural liberal tendencies of tolerance and understanding, thus setting the example for us boorish conservative types on how to do it with a sense of grace, aplomb, and good taste? It would be beneficial to see an exlempary example of fair and balanced application of these important core values.

Thank you.