Do The Conservatives Deserve Another Chance?
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
It's very easy for me to grasp.
It won't work. It never could work under any circumstance.
Without a government there is no law, there is no country, there is no agreement on anything of the sort.
How would you regulate your military? How would you gather and process tax?
Like a square wheel this just won't work.
Hmm... so you like high taxes or you like killing the down-and-out.
The reason we pay welfare is because it's cheaper than the cost of policing to suppress unemployed people when they're hungry.
The only way to make your idealized tax-scheme cost effective would be to shoot everyone who's unemployed and hungry enough to steal, otherwise it's simply cheaper to give them a minimal subsidy than would be the cost of all the cops required to keep them down.
Last edited:
Earned how? Over billing decrepit old widows for services NOT performed while p*ssing it up in the local bar? :lol:
There would be a government.
To run the military and police to uphold the law.
Canadians should be free to do what they want as long as it dosen't infringe on someone elses freedoms and safety.
Avro - I know you will probably never change you opinion but just for a minute consider this....
When your sister, or wife, or one of your kids gets cancer and...
You have remortgaged your house
You have sold your ATV
You have sold you kids ATVs
You have sold you 68 Camaro you owned for 27 years
You have taken on a personnal loan you couldn't afford
You have worked 10+ hrs/day for months to pay the new loans and mortgage
You have spent much of your time away from work sitting through their chemo treatments
You have spent more time holding you mother while she cries for hours
You have spent more time holding your sister while she cries for hours
You have spent more time holding your wife while she cries for hours
You have spent more time holding your brother-in-law while he cries for hours
You have cried for hours
When you have done all this and expended everything looking for a treatment to get a few more weeks and can no longer afford the $1600/mo for medication just so they are more comfortable and are left to wait for the end knowing it will come soon would you then still say no to support from your govt to ease their pain?
When your sister, or wife, or one of your kids gets cancer and...
You have remortgaged your house
You have sold your ATV
You have sold you kids ATVs
You have sold you 68 Camaro you owned for 27 years
You have taken on a personnal loan you couldn't afford
You have worked 10+ hrs/day for months to pay the new loans and mortgage
You have spent much of your time away from work sitting through their chemo treatments
You have spent more time holding you mother while she cries for hours
You have spent more time holding your sister while she cries for hours
You have spent more time holding your wife while she cries for hours
You have spent more time holding your brother-in-law while he cries for hours
You have cried for hours
When you have done all this and expended everything looking for a treatment to get a few more weeks and can no longer afford the $1600/mo for medication just so they are more comfortable and are left to wait for the end knowing it will come soon would you then still say no to support from your govt to ease their pain?
That would be fraud...so no.
I would not look to someone else for something I should takecare of myself.
As I said, if you had paid almost no tax, perhaps 80% less than you are now you'd would have been given the choice to prepare for such an event and perhaps had enough to donate to a hospice that helps people die comfortably.....but don't look to the government to force someone else to pay for it.
That's my choice and mine alone.
If someone is coming after me, my family or my property then the police can do what they will.
Work or starve.
Would a slug care?
I'm beginning to think this "Avro"- A vicious robotic object is some contrivance dreampt up by a sick mind and wired to a computer as it's entire dialogue for the past umpteen hundred posts is comprised of only two or three hackneyed responses.
Actually, this has been studied, and the fundamental difference between countries rampant with government corruption and those not is that those not pay their government workers a living wage.
What a lovely vision you have for society.
You want to be this while everyone else is so filthy and flea-bitten that you have to hold a perfumed hanky to your nose to not vomit from the stink.
Actually, they used to get cost-of-living adjustments, but if you've ever worked in Ottawa you'd know that the federal service was downsized to the bone under Martin, such that the only people left on government payroll work full-time doing nothing but write RFPs for private-sector companies to bid on to do the work that used to be done by government employees, such that now the government is paying more to get the same work done, because companies won't bid on a project unless it can cover their living *and* their overhead.
And Americans are oh so much happier now as a lot, aren't they.
Yesterday one of my most important associates from Chicago got mugged and almost killed just for his i-phone, which have a high pawn value.
Him being out of commission is definitely *not* good for business, and the cops said the thugs tend to use half the money for drugs, and the other half they give to their moms so she can pay bills.
If the thugs had access to some of the benefits of our modern society, they'd have less incentive to be goons, such that my associate will still be able to work, and my business would not be feeling the hit, which means for me, your vision is bad for business.
Last edited:
Sorry if I don't subscribe to your socialist values JLM.
Perhaps if someone running a charity who would take of such matters came to my door asking for a donation I would help. I have donated to charities before, volunteered at a soup kitchen and have helped my wife run a charity at Christmas for years now....they were all by choice and no government was in my pocket for it.
You want to forcebly take from others to fund all these liberal socialist pet projects...considering your employer I can't blame you. You'd have to actually work for a living instead of suckling on the tax payers teet.:smile:
Have a good one.
The National on CBC, using video past clips of Harper and agreements signed from the past "coalition," undercut the current Conservative assertions and demonstrated that our "emperor/prime minister has no clothes!"
After 5 years in office, why are the Conservatives currently running a campaign based on half truths about the opposition, rather than their record of achievements?
After 5 years in office, why are the Conservatives currently running a campaign based on half truths about the opposition, rather than their record of achievements?
YAWN!
Yep.
But the threat of a Harper "coalition" is long since past....and I watched Tom Flanaghan tonite on CBC lambasting people for misquoting him on the whole issue of the 2004 thing.
In fact, there is no threat now, as the Count has discounted the coalition idea...
(pun intended)Let's drop the subject. It's a waste of time.
A coalition including the BQ would be unacceptable by ANYBODY..........
BTW, Unforgiven, I'm still waiting for that abject apology.......
But I am a patient man.
BTW, Unforgiven, I'm still waiting for that abject apology.......
But I am a patient man.
Good that means you growing as a person Colpy. Sometimes you can wait for something for a long time. But you only get it when you deserve it. So, I say it is good you are a patient man. lol
You can drop the subject right on you foot if you want. Your Grand Poobah is still harping on it....
Hmm...
If you read all the BQ campaign literature, you'd know they have totally dropped their call for separation. They are now pitching themselves as being the party to best represent Quebec interests in Ottawa.
It's not the first time a party based on a provincial perspective has evolved to a point where the original foundation is fundamentally changed.
If you can remember the Social Credit party, you'll remember their original core mandate was to nationalize all financial organizations, and make it so lending institutions would not do lending via fractional reserve accounting. You'll also remember they preached that the best way to keep the economy going was for government to print money and give everyone $25 per month to spend.
Their core constituency was Alberta, and their mark on that province today is ATB Financial, aka the Alberta Treasury Board, owned by the provincial government of Alberta.
They did some interesting things, like make their own currency which was valid in Alberta only, such that when people crossed into BC their coinage was useless, such that coin collectors used to sweep the grounds around railroad tracks crossing the Alberta-BC border hoping to find those rare Alberta coins.
It's too bad the Socreds never got more traction, because if they had, we wouldn't be in the recession we are now, because this recession was not created by inventory surpluses, which is what used to cause them... this one was 100% the result of kids gone wild on a sugar-high in a deregulated candy store.
Anyway, as you can see, the Socreds had some uber-left wing ideas. It's even in their name... *Social* Credit.
But by the time they'd crawled across the country into other provinces, and then into Ottawa, they'd morphed from being a private financier's nightmare to being the most fundamentally right-wing party in the nation.
Likewise, every Quebecker I know has told me that the time for them to separate is over.
They tell me the time for that would have been during the period when the Soviet Union was breaking up and new governments were forming in eastern Europe, when places like Czechoslovakia were breaking apart into Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and when the world was accustomed to new governments and rewritten maps.
Now they simply see it as the party to best represent Quebec's interests, and they tend to view the residuals separatists as being out of touch.
But Harper will keep doing what he does, which is confabulate.
Harper will say that the Liberals and NDP would form a coalition with the BQ like last time.
Except... last time... the BQ was *not* part of the Liberal-NDP coalition. The BQ said they would not stop the Liberal-NDP coalition and would not vote against it. That's no different than the BQ agreeing to not stop a Conservative initiative, which they have done on occasion.
Harper will say that having BQ complicity is effectively the same as being a legal part of the coalition, but it's not, because only members of the coalition get into cabinet. If the Liberal-NDP coalition had happened, there would have been *no* BQers in cabinet.
But let's suppose that the BQ were to join a Liberal-NDP coalition, which they wouldn't...
And let's suppose that the BQ was about separation, which it isn't anymore...
Even if the BQ were to join a Liberal-NDP coalition, which they won't, and even if they were focused on separation, which they're not...
Can you not see how pulling a separatist BQ into a coalition is the *best* way to dilute their focus and water down their ability to do an effective call for separation?!?
So, the BQ is not about separation, but Harper will confabulate and say they are.
The BQ would not join a coalition, but Harper will say they would.
And if the BQ were to join a coalition, then if they did have a separatist agenda, which they don't but which Harper will say they do, Harper will go on to say that their separatist sentiments will take over and dominate the coalition and force a separation of Quebec via the force of a mighty coalition, when in fact joining a coalition would dilute BQs focus.
Yet in the middle of all the ranting against coalitions, Harper will *never* mention that his own party is the result of a coalition of two parties that went beyond coalition all the way to merger.
Does Harper say *anything* that's not a twisting of the facts?
Why does he do it?
Maybe he likes to lie. Some people do.
But maybe it's that he likes being in charge, so he says what he knows his constituents believe in order to get elected, which means all that nonsense coming out his mouth is just a reflection of the bags-full of misconceptions that 39% of Canadians are walking around with in their heads.
That would be sad were it not so dangerous should it get power.
Imagine being ruled by a mob loaded up with false knowledge.
Might as well have a government of alien worshiping crystal gazers and homeopathic healers for all the difference it would make.
Last edited: