Belinda Stronach appointed to Cabinet

[Derry McKinney]

The tax cuts for all were to be phased in over time. Quit going on history of the old PC's. This is a new party with new people and new policies. To continue to compare them to old parties is misleading.

You are dependent on the same trickle down theories you were extolling 25 years ago. Guess what? People got tired of being trickled on.

Your theories led to increased debt, more work for less pay, the gutting of the social safety net, and an ever-increasing gap between rich and poor.

Spending was over the liberals, which included spending on the military which the left, including liberals and NDP have tragically ignored. But social programs were to be reviewed to ensure the most money went to the right people.

Don't try that, "The other parties would do nothing for the military," crap, BA. The Liberals and NDP both had plans for increasing military spending. It wasn't based on US needs and didn't require US-style expenditures, but then they weren't trying to send troops to Iraq either.

You little rant about how great Alberta is doesn't wash either. If it did, Klein would have gotten more votes, not less during the last election. He lost support even with his massive vote buying in the last budget.

Freezing spending when costs keep going up is a de facto cut. Closing hospitals when there are increasing waiting times is stupid. Saying that you've got nobody to staff them is political and intellectual cowardice...you could have hired people. Better yet, if you wouldn't have quit training doctors and nurses, you would have had people to hire.

So yell and scream about corruption and mismanagement. Yell at Ralphie for a change though. Unless, that is, you are too afraid to look at what his policies have gotten you.

 

[bluealberta]

The tax cuts for all were to be phased in over time. Quit going on history of the old PC's. This is a new party with new people and new policies. To continue to compare them to old parties is misleading.

You are dependent on the same trickle down theories you were extolling 25 years ago. Guess what? People got tired of being trickled on.

The new CPC has new policies, as I stated before.

Your theories led to increased debt, more work for less pay, the gutting of the social safety net, and an ever-increasing gap between rich and poor.

Spending was over the liberals, which included spending on the military which the left, including liberals and NDP have tragically ignored. But social programs were to be reviewed to ensure the most money went to the right people.

Don't try that, "The other parties would do nothing for the military," crap, BA. The Liberals and NDP both had plans for increasing military spending. It wasn't based on US needs and didn't require US-style expenditures, but then they weren't trying to send troops to Iraq either.

Actually, the rationale of not sending troops to Iraq was because it was not UN santioned. If the UN had sanctioned it, Canadian troops would have gone. So let's not get too sanctimonious here, okay? Of course both had plans to increase spending on the military, couldn't get less. And the conservatives did not propose a carrier, it was a mulifunctional ship that included carrying troops, Short take off planes, and helicopters. The Liberals consistently cut the military spending, which was disgraceful and an insult to our troops.

You little rant about how great Alberta is doesn't wash either. If it did, Klein would have gotten more votes, not less during the last election. He lost support even with his massive vote buying in the last budget.

He had such a massive majority before, it was only logical he would lose some. He still has a majority every other political leader in this country would love to have. He didn't buy any votes last budget either. Funny how you are always wanting him to spend our money, but when he does, its vote buying. Make up your mind, would you?

Freezing spending when costs keep going up is a de facto cut. Closing hospitals when there are increasing waiting times is stupid. Saying that you've got nobody to staff them is political and intellectual cowardice...you could have hired people. Better yet, if you wouldn't have quit training doctors and nurses, you would have had people to hire.

Nobody quit training anybody, that is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Yes, programs got frozen. Read again: 9 hospitals in a 120 mile radius. That was a case of overkill, and not all of them got closed. Three got closed that were within 20 miles of each other, though. What do you want, a hospital on every corner?

So yell and scream about corruption and mismanagement. Yell at Ralphie for a change though. Unless, that is, you are too afraid to look at what his policies have gotten you.

Yes, lets look: The province where people are flooding to from all across Canada. The province with the lowest personal tax rate. The province with no debt. The province with no sales tax. The province with the lowest unemployment in Canada. The province that spends the highest amount per capita on health care in Canada.

Afraid to look? Wish everyone else would look and copy. Has everything been perfect? Far from it, but overall, most thinking people can recognise the benefits that the policies of Ralph have given us. Of course, unthinking people just spout nonsense, out of jealousy and ignorance, I suspect.

 

[mrmom2]

One word for you Blue OIL thats the only reason you have any of that and when its gone then what :? Guess what I see Alberta plates all over all of a sudden .People are leaving that hell hole and coming back here So watch your back BC is on the rise :wink:

 

[Derry McKinney]

The new CPC has new policies, as I stated before.

They don't though. They've prettied them, but it's like putting lipstick on a pig.

Actually, the rationale of not sending troops to Iraq was because it was not UN santioned. If the UN had sanctioned it, Canadian troops would have gone.

If the UN would have sanctioned it, it wouldn't have been an illegal US war based on lies and fought for oil.

Nobody quit training anybody, that is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Yes, programs got frozen.

Go look up the statistics. Training of medical professionals went way down.

Read again: 9 hospitals in a 120 mile radius. That was a case of overkill, and not all of them got closed. Three got closed that were within 20 miles of each other, though. What do you want, a hospital on every corner?

Your premier closed hospitals and cut beds while waiting times kept on increasing.

He had such a massive majority before, it was only logical he would lose some.

Yeah, he was doing such a fine job that fewer people voted for him.

:roll:

He didn't buy any votes last budget either.

Oh really? Then why did he increase spending by so much? On those wasteful social programs you hate so much too.

 

[bluealberta]

One word for you Blue OIL thats the only reason you have any of that and when its gone then what :? Guess what I see Alberta plates all over all of a sudden .People are leaving that hell hole and coming back here So watch your back BC is on the rise :wink:

Oil.....and the initiative and balls to develop it to where it is now, a leader in the world in oil extraction, a leader in the world in clean energy, cutting edge technology for the next millenium.

Your point about when its gone is exactly what concerns us. The transfer payments of between $9billion and $12billion per year get wasted on a lot corruption and patronage, not to mention the overbudget programs. So yes, we would like to keep that money. Why? To invest in alternate energy sources for when oil does decline (by the way, there is enough oil and tarsands oil for the next 200 years at least). To invest in diversifying our economy to reduce the reliance upon oil. Instead we get adscam, foundation accounts, HRDC, gun registry, cancelled helicopters, etc.

By the way, if Alberta is so bad, why does virtually everyone in the SE corner of BC come to Alberta for their hospital stays? I live here, I see it, I know people in the hospitals who confirm it. And Albertans come to BC for two reasons: to vacation and to get back to a real province. :twisted:

 

[bluealberta]

The new CPC has new policies, as I stated before.

They don't though. They've prettied them, but it's like putting lipstick on a pig.

Actually, the rationale of not sending troops to Iraq was because it was not UN santioned. If the UN had sanctioned it, Canadian troops would have gone.

If the UN would have sanctioned it, it wouldn't have been an illegal US war based on lies and fought for oil.

Nobody quit training anybody, that is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Yes, programs got frozen.

Go look up the statistics. Training of medical professionals went way down.

Read again: 9 hospitals in a 120 mile radius. That was a case of overkill, and not all of them got closed. Three got closed that were within 20 miles of each other, though. What do you want, a hospital on every corner?

Your premier closed hospitals and cut beds while waiting times kept on increasing.

He had such a massive majority before, it was only logical he would lose some.

Yeah, he was doing such a fine job that fewer people voted for him.

:roll:

He didn't buy any votes last budget either.

Oh really? Then why did he increase spending by so much? On those wasteful social programs you hate so much too.

Your ignorance of and distortion of the facts is astounding. There is no way to respond to such ridiculous statements. Get real. :evil:

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Belinda Stronach appo

So you have no answer? It's about damned time you came to your senses and recognized you didn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

So you have no answer? It's about damned time you came to your senses and recognized you didn't have a leg to stand on.

No answer available that will satsify one who twists and spins like you do. More lies and innuendoes are not responses in the first place, so why respond to something that inane.

The conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility, and if that offends you or others, fine, don;t vote for them. But don't take the ridiculous attitude that fiscal responsibility somehow will lead to a gutting of every social program in the country, will put gays in jail, will cancel immigration, etc. That is just absurd thinking and without any credible evidence from credible publications. First of all, people like me who vote conservative would not stand for it, and secondly, it the rest of the country did not want it, they would be voted out at the next election.

Quite frankly, any party that wants to reduce the taxes I pay, have less government programs instead of more, and believes strongly in free enterprise instead of legislated socialism will get my support. The Liberals and the NDP do not support this, so I will not support them. And the fact the Liberals are incredibly arrogant and corrupt is another reason to not even consider them, but then, I guess the ones who do support them want to get their heads in the feed trough too.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Belinda Stronach appo

Don't you get dizzy spinning like that, Blue?

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

Don't you get dizzy spinning like that, Blue?

Hard to get dizzy going straight ahead. The conservatives want less government, less taxes, more fiscal responsibility, and to let the provinces have control of the areas they are guaranteed in the consititution. The liberals and ndp, on the other hand, want cradle to grave control of our lives and regulations on everything, unwanted and unnecessary programs, and no fiscal responsibility, and to take away the areas which the provinces are supposed to have control over.

 

[peapod]

Voting for the conservatives has nothing to do with finance, why can't you understand that. We take the thief over the religious zealot. Not much of a choice, but there it is...as long as the conservatives carry the baggage of religious zealots, I doubt they will ever get elected in this country, all you have to do is look south and see what the religious zealot has done in that country.

 

[bluealberta]

Voting for the conservatives has nothing to do with finance, why can't you understand that. We take the thief over the religious zealot. Not much of a choice, but there it is...as long as the conservatives carry the baggage of religious zealots, I doubt they will ever get elected in this country, all you have to do is look south and see what the religious zealot has done in that country.

Voting for the conservatives has nothing to do with religion, why can't YOU get over that? You want a thief, fine, have a thief. It's beyond comprehension how you can support someone who uses tax dollars to top up their election fund, but then, comprehension is not the strong suit of NDP and Liberal supporters.

You know, its funny, but I was watching Clinton on CNN last night talking to Larry King, and he made far more comments supporting religion, and in particular Billy Graham and his religious convictions, than I have ever heard Harper say. He also said it was time the left wing in the US quit trying to portray the right wing as ogres, because it was doing nothing to further discussions on important issues in the US. Given that Clinton is a member of the left, perhaps his comments are a message not only to the US left wing, but also the Canadian left wing that is worth reading. Don't get me wrong, I did not support Clinton, but that does not mean that I automatically demean everything he says or does simply because he is left wing.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Belinda Stronach appo

Clinton didn't base his political decisions on god or religion though. He cancelled the stupid global gag order that was killing women and children in developing countries (which Bush has reinstated and Harper has said he agrees with), and he wasn't spending his time trying to take away a woman's right to choose, a popular right wing pastime in the US and Canada.

Look at conservative social policies and tell us again how they aren't related to their radical religious beliefs, BA. We all know that they'd impose their beliefs on us if they could, but it's funny to see you try to spin it the other way.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

Clinton didn't base his political decisions on god or religion though. He cancelled the stupid global gag order that was killing women and children in developing countries (which Bush has reinstated and Harper has said he agrees with), and he wasn't spending his time trying to take away a woman's right to choose, a popular right wing pastime in the US and Canada.

How do you know he didn't? Were you in the White House? There is absolutely nothing in any of the CPC policies that anyone with even a modicum of intelligence could point to that says the conservativew will take away a womans right to choose. Your continued deliberate misrepresentation of this is beyond a joke.

Look at conservative social policies and tell us again how they aren't related to their radical religious beliefs, BA. We all know that they'd impose their beliefs on us if they could, but it's funny to see you try to spin it the other way.

You tell me, because I see nothing in any of their polices that even resembles anything called the radical religous group. Now I understand that anybody with any religious beliefs at all will be radical to you, but normal people don't think that way. There is no spin, just the facts, something you should get acquainted with at some point instead of the mindless and unfounded drivel you keep saying the conservatives are proposing. There is nothing in their policies that resembles anything you accuse them of.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I wonder then blue, if you are able to detect, in any measure, the insane religiousity of Bush's Backwater Christian Revival...

 

[bluealberta]

I wonder then blue, if you are able to detect, in any measure, the insane religiousity of Bush's Backwater Christian Revival...

No, but then I'm not looking under every rock and in every crevice for any kind of religious revival stuff as you put it. Just because someone is religious does not make them dangerous, any more than you being an aethist or non religious makes you dangerous. Everybody has their beliefs, and everybody has their opinions based on these beliefs and life experiences. Extreme postions, whether they be right or left are dangerous, but you and others seem to take the view that any religous belief is extreme, which is an extreme viewpoint all by itself, and makes my point. Moderate viewpoints are more palatable then either the extreme religous viewpoint (like,who handles snakes willingly anyway), and your extreme anti religous viewpoint.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Belinda Stronach appo

The global gag order that Bush reinstated is causing real people to die, Blue. It is very much a piece of faith-based legislation. Look it up.

Harper very pointedly refused to say that he would keep his MPs from introducing a private members bill banning abortion. He did say that if one of them did, he would let his MPs vote for it.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

The global gag order that Bush reinstated is causing real people to die, Blue. It is very much a piece of faith-based legislation. Look it up.

Harper very pointedly refused to say that he would keep his MPs from introducing a private members bill banning abortion. He did say that if one of them did, he would let his MPs vote for it.

Gee, democracy, what a concept, letting an elected member bring a private members bill to the house of commons. My God, the world will come to an end, and we will all go to hell. Do you realize just how stupid your statement was? Are our elected members not allowed to bring a bill to the house? And if it was brought forth banning abortion, I would be the first to call my local conservative MP to tell him that I could not support this bill, and asking him to vote against it. But never would I suggest that any elected member has no right to bring forth any private members bill, and for you to suggest otherwise only reinforces those who think the NDP is the closest thing we have to communism in this country. So if you are suggesting that a member of parliament does not have this right, you are against democratic rights in Canada, and seeing as your support is with the NDP, then you are confirming that the NDP is against democratic rights in Canada. For shame. :evil:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Belinda Stronach appo

You are talking about using a private members bill as a way to have a policy that appears more moderate to the Canadian people while still putting forth the same old extremist ideas, Blue. That is dishonest at its very heart. It is corrupt, in fact.

The rest of your post is an untruth wrapped in a myth promoted only by the dishonest.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

You are talking about using a private members bill as a way to have a policy that appears more moderate to the Canadian people while still putting forth the same old extremist ideas, Blue. That is dishonest at its very heart. It is corrupt, in fact.

The rest of your post is an untruth wrapped in a myth promoted only by the dishonest.

Actually I was talking about a member of parliament using the democratic tools he or she is entitled to, nothing more, nothing less. To deny these rights is undemocratic, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with corruption, the Libs have the stranglehold on that, and it is not dishonest. There is no indication in any of the conservatives policies that even suggest the extremist threat you continually espouse.