Do The Conservatives Deserve Another Chance?

[CDNBear]

As somebody who will not reward a liar with my vote, I ask all those who will vote for Harper how they justify it.

They'll justify it the same way you justify not conceding when proven wrong.

Don't challenge his flawed logic. He'll just play dumb.

I don't think he's playing.

Sweden
Norway
Finland
Netherlands
Denmark

All those countries have exceptionally well equipped Armies, reletive to their land mass.

Go figure.

If you don't want to discuss it anymore that's fine.

Have a good day.

He didn't say he didn't want to discuss it anymore, he just made it clear, he didn't want to hear about your imaginary taxes.

I wouldn't expect as much from this fella Mark:lol:

I'd apologize opnely if he did.

The PPost system is what has taught me to keep my mouth shut until I'm aware of the facts.

Given the lambasting you've taken in 4 threads, and the fact that you've run away from 4 debates, 3 on the same subject. You most certainly do not keep your mouth shut until you have all the facts. lol

13 billion dollar surplus, blown.
56 billion dollar deficit currently.
200 billion more in debt and ongoing.
War on two fronts currently.
Health care sinking.
Economy stagnant.
Recovery stalled.
Wasteful spending (hello G20) currently.
No confidence in the government.
No confidence in Harper.
Lies.
Sandal.

You do realize that all pales in comparison to the list I have on Liberal f!ck up eh?

In contempt of Parliament for hiding cost information on F35s and Super Max prisons.

Ummm, no, the contempt was based on the Afghanistan detainee issue. With regards to documents pertaining to the whole of the Afghanistan mission. Documents, no sitting gov't has ever been asked to present, in a time of conflict. The opposition forcing them to do so, is a precedent setting motion, upheld by a partisan speaker of the house.

Give him a majority and see where we stand in a few years. He has almost broke the country financially, he is in contempt of parliament and therefor all of us. And his mega-prisons are not meant for real criminals, you can bet on that.

Nice fear mongering Cliffy.

Like saying the Liberals will form a coalition with the Bloc and the NDP after the Liberals have said publicly that there is no coalition?

Here read this...

Ignatieff still dancing | Ezra Levant | Columnists | Comment | Calgary Sun

Wording is everything.

Nope.

They crossed the line when they did the Contempt of Parliament, pure and simple.

This has already been explained, and even hardcore Liberals like 5P admit I'm right.

If you can afford it. if not you can die on the steps of the hospital and they will charge your family for the clean-up.

It's against the law to turn away or deny anyone in need of medical care in the US, full stop.

Your comment is typical BS.

Not my problem, if you can't pay work harder.

Wow, when I said that, you were all over me for being inhuman and a big meanie.

I guess being on EI has made you understand the value of a dollar eh.

Hmm... so you like high taxes or you like killing the down-and-out.

No, he likes BS.

Let's drop the subject. It's a waste of time.

Not so long as Harpo keeps the story warm.

"Ron in Regina asks: Who pushed for this spending, in a minority government situation?"
Was this not the Liberals, NDP and he bloc???

Yes it was.

 

[Unforgiven]

You do realize that all pales in comparison to the list I have on Liberal f!ck up eh?

Oh my yes the mote in your eye is nothing at all compared to the mote in mine. heh heh

Ummm, no, the contempt was based on the Afghanistan detainee issue. With regards to documents pertaining to the whole of the Afghanistan mission. Documents, no sitting gov't has ever been asked to present, in a time of conflict. The opposition forcing them to do so, is a precedent setting motion, upheld by a partisan speaker of the house.

Oh that contempt of parliament. It does get confusing with so many of these little problems popping up all the time.
Now about the Speaker, Harper's Conservatives elected him too, many times as the Speaker of the House so he can't be all that partisan if all parties continuously return him to that position. Seems they have some glowing things to say about his service to the country. That he was returned to office as Speaker after the last election also with Conservative support, seems to rebuke that partisan label you so haphazardly slap on him.

Touching on the whole coalition thingy, wasn't it possible for the other three parties to go to the Governor General and offer up a coalition government after the government was tossed out in this latest non-confidence vote? Seems like a quick way to take over if that is in fact what they wanted to do. Yet that never happened. Can you think of a reason why, given Harper's take on Ignateiff not wanting to goto the polls? That just doesn't seem to add up with all this fear mongering about a coalition.

Nice fear mongering Cliffy.

Here read this...

Ignatieff still dancing | Ezra Levant | Columnists | Comment | Calgary Sun

Wording is everything.

So you're trying to say that even though they could simply have asked the GG to consider a coalition government without holding an election, there is no doubt that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc will attempt to form a coalition after the election if Harper fails to win a majority?

heh heh And you're saying that Cliffy is fear mongering? A rascal you are! ;-)

 

[El Barto]

Watching the news last night. Talking about the new fighter contract and the cost of it....
What the Conservatives were saying that each were to cost around 75 million a piece, but was recalculated be someone else and the real price was around 140 million a piece.....tho the Americans say thiers cost 110 /120 million.

Yeah , the more I hear , the less I want the Conservatives handling money.

 

[JLM]

That would be fraud...so no.



.

Oh fraud now really- that would really be against the morals of someone who takes it upon himself to show such callousness and contempt for someone with poor Nicks dilemma and grief. I personally think you'd cut the womb out of your own grandmother and sell it for tripe.

 

[CDNBear]

Oh my yes the mote in your eye is nothing at all compared to the mote in mine. heh heh

There's nothing in my eye. I simply wish to see the facts represented.

Oh that contempt of parliament. It does get confusing with so many of these little problems popping up all the time.
Now about the Speaker, Harper's Conservatives elected him too, many times as the Speaker of the House so he can't be all that partisan if all parties continuously return him to that position. Seems they have some glowing things to say about his service to the country. That he was returned to office as Speaker after the last election also with Conservative support, seems to rebuke that partisan label you so haphazardly slap on him.

You've never seen a dog bite the hand that fed it?

As I even managed to make my case to a Liberal diehard like Chris. I think my opinion stands on pretty firm ground.

Touching on the whole coalition thingy, wasn't it possible for the other three parties to go to the Governor General and offer up a coalition government after the government was tossed out in this latest non-confidence vote? Seems like a quick way to take over if that is in fact what they wanted to do. Yet that never happened. Can you think of a reason why, given Harper's take on Ignateiff not wanting to goto the polls? That just doesn't seem to add up with all this fear mongering about a coalition.

I agree, which is why I don't do any fear mongering about coalition gov't. I just think making one with a party like the Bloc is abhorrent. Which is one of my problems with Harper.

So you're trying to say that even though they could simply have asked the GG to consider a coalition government without holding an election, there is no doubt that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc will attempt to form a coalition after the election if Harper fails to win a majority?

No, I'm saying wording is a very important part of communication.

heh heh And you're saying that Cliffy is fear mongering? A rascal you are! ;-)

I never said there was no doubt, I simply show where wording is extremely important and one should pay close attention to it. You can interpret it anyway you want. Given your ideological blinders, I'm not surprised you see it that way.

As soon as I can get Mark to change out of his tutu, we're coming to save you buddy!

 

[Unforgiven]

There's nothing in my eye. I simply wish to see the facts represented.

Tell the truth and shame the devil!

You've never seen a dog bite the hand tat fed it?

Sure, but that isn't the case here. Harper and the Conservatives were found in contempt of parliament. It's not a failing on anyone's part other than Harper and the Conservatives. Cause and effect.

As I even managed to make my case to a Liberal diehard like Chris. I think my opinion stands on pretty firm ground.

Well, Jesus loves me and that should be good enough for you.

I agree, which is why I don't do any fear mongering about coalition gov't. I just think making one with a party like the Bloc is abhorrent. Which is one of my problems with Harper.

You mean about Harper wanting to form a coalition government which included the Bloc, then attempts to lie about intent later as he paints the Liberals with the coalition brush? Seems there are only a few people in Canada, Harper and a select few others that feels do as I say not as I do is a very good position to argue from.

No, I'm saying wording is a very important part of communication.

Well let's speak clearly then. There is no coalition between the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc in any sense of the word. So why is it an issue? The only reason that would be an issue is fear mongering.

You can interpret it anyway you want. Given you ideological blinders, I'm not surprised you see it that way.

It is what it is. You can call it what you like but it doesn't change the nature of it in any way.

As soon as I can get Mark to change out of his tutu, we're coming to save you buddy!

Watch it, he's a biter! Now you two remember the super secret handshake so I don't have to frag you coming in to camp right?

 

[CDNBear]

Tell the truth and shame the devil!

I have. Those that wish to remain ignorant to the use of specific woring are the ones lying to themselves.

Sure, but that isn't the case here. Harper and the Conservatives were found in contempt of parliament. It's not a failing on anyone's part other than Harper and the Conservatives. Cause and effect.

Ya, forcing a sitting gov't to do something that has never been done before, for partisan politicking, is all Harpers fault. He asked a Federal Judge to review the material, he asked for time to be sure we didn't risk assets and the security of other nations. The opposition forced a precedent setting motion, based on cheap political partisanship. Plain and simple.

Well, Jesus loves me and that should be good enough for you.

Given his expertise in the area. Yes it is.

You mean about Harper wanting to form a coalition government which included the Bloc, then attempts to lie about intent later as he paints the Liberals with the coalition brush?

Did you purposely miss the part where I inferred it's wrong?

Seems there are only a few people in Canada, Harper and a select few others that feels do as I say not as I do is a very good position to argue from.

I agree.

Well let's speak clearly then. There is no coalition between the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc in any sense of the word.

That's not true.

The only reason that would be an issue is fear mongering.

Only if you want to be obtuse.

Watch it, he's a biter! Now you two remember the super secret handshake so I don't have to frag you coming in to camp right?

So we have to deprogram you too!!!

 

[JLM]

I think if Harper were smart he'd just keep his mouth shut for the next 30 days, just go to the various ridings and smile.

 

[Cannuck]

Government employees are mostly all thieves,

Since you probably don't know most government employees you are clearly talking out your ass.

they are overpaid,

A local CUPE mechanic gets about $25/Hr. I'd love to see you explain how $25 for a mechanic is "overpaid"

have a low work load and their pay dosen't reflect the markets ability to pay.

Of course it does. The market is paying it.

Sure, but that isn't the case here. Harper and the Conservatives were found in contempt of parliament. It's not a failing on anyone's part other than Harper and the Conservatives. Cause and effect.

So what? It's just cheap politicing. I'm no fan of Harper but I find this contempt of parliament thing amusing, much like the Clinton impeachment

 

[Avro]

Oh fraud now really- that would really be against the morals of someone who takes it upon himself to show such callousness and contempt for someone with poor Nicks dilemma and grief.

Yes fraud, that would be against the law. I never said anything about not upholding the law.

I personally think you'd cut the womb out of your own grandmother and sell it for tripe

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

"Ron in Regina asks: Who pushed for this spending, in a minority government situation?"
Was this not the Liberals, NDP and he bloc???

No, it was the conservatives for lying about spending....remember the contempt charge?

How is it the conservatives say the jets will cost one thing and the pentagon says another? This among other lies about how they will spend our money that they are stealing from us.

What about those jails, who is paying for them anyways? Psst, it's not the Feds, they will will laying that one on the Provinces against their will.

Canadians are so dumb sometimes....they should make a show called talking to Canadians, I doubt the CBC would do that, they'd have to interview themselves.:lol:

 

[mentalfloss]

All those countries have exceptionally well equipped Armies, relative to their land mass.

Go figure.

Well, yea, the state paid for them.

The point was:

Higher taxes != EVIL.

Everyone pitched in to afford all associated costs, military or otherwise.

 

[Unforgiven]

I have. Those that wish to remain ignorant to the use of specific woring are the ones lying to themselves.

Man when they put the chip in they put the chip in. No one is about to tempt fate and finish their career by trying to sneak a coalition in the back door. Doing so would demolish the Liberal party and guarantee the Conservatives a majority for years to come. This is obvious so let's move on.

Ya, forcing a sitting gov't to do something that has never been done before, for partisan politicking, is all Harpers fault. He asked a Federal Judge to review the material, he asked for time to be sure we didn't risk assets and the security of other nations. The opposition forced a precedent setting motion, based on cheap political partisanship. Plain and simple.

Name a time when there has been a need to force information out of the government that Parliament has a right to see.

Given his expertise in the area. Yes it is.

Hey was that below the belt? 8O

That's not true.

Time will tell Pinky, time will tell.

Only if you want to be obtuse.

I yam what I yam.

So we have to deprogram you too!!!

Oh great, junior haXcoRe squad here we come. I dare say that by day six you sweethearts would have to interrupt your afternoon weep session for some sensitive man herbal colonics. Now I won't tell on you but I insist on riding you bitches back to town and understand fluffy and the gimp are going back in the trunk wet and spent. That's just the way it's going to be.

 

[Omicron]

I think if Harper were smart he'd just keep his mouth shut for the next 30 days, just go to the various ridings and smile.

lol...

I betcha all of them could do better if they did what Americans do sometimes, which is hire doubles that have micro-speakers in their ears, and they make speeches read to them from someone in a van close-by, and in the van are policy-Q&A experts who quickly tell the double what to say when someone in the crowd asks a question.

I don't think we'd let that one pass, just like we still insist on ballets being physically countable paper, so some leeway has to be granted the candidates for actually being there in person, or if they know they'll look bad, just not show up the way Conservative candidates are so notorious for ding at candidates debates...

But still... now matter how awkwardly candidate might handle himself at Q&A, bottom line is, if his policy is lunched, it's a lunched policy.

 

[CDNBear]

Everyone pitched in to afford all associated costs, military or otherwise.

But you don't support military spending, those countries do. And on a greater per capita basis then we do.

Man when they put the chip in they put the chip in. No one is about to tempt fate and finish their career by trying to sneak a coalition in the back door. Doing so would demolish the Liberal party and guarantee the Conservatives a majority for years to come. This is obvious so let's move on.

Oh I agree. But then again, I've seen the Feds say "We didn't say that, we said this". Just one to many times.

Name a time when there has been a need to force information out of the government that Parliament has a right to see.

The precedent was set during the three wars we were involved heavily in. No opposition would have even tried to do what the opposition has done. Times were different then, the people would have been looking for blood.

Hey was that below the belt? 8O

Oh great, junior haXcoRe squad here we come. I dare say that by day six you sweethearts would have to interrupt your afternoon weep session for some sensitive man herbal colonics. Now I won't tell on you but I insist on riding you bitches back to town and understand fluffy and the gimp are going back in the trunk wet and spent. That's just the way it's going to be.

lol...

I betcha all of them could do better if they did what Americans do sometimes, which is hire doubles that have micro-speakers in their ears, and they make speeches read to them from someone in a van close-by, and in the van are policy-Q&A experts who quickly tell the double what to say when someone in the crowd asks a question.

I don't think we'd let that one pass, just like we still insist on ballets being physically countable paper, so some leeway has to be granted the candidates for actually being there in person, or if they know they'll look bad, just not show up the way Conservative candidates are so notorious for ding at candidates debates...

But still... now matter how awkwardly candidate might handle himself at Q&A, bottom line is, if his policy is lunched, it's a lunched policy.

From Darth Vader to Hitler to doppelgangers. Yer a hoot!!!

 

[mentalfloss]

But you don't support military spending, those countries do. And on a greater per capita basis then we do.

Sure, they're not perfect either. And I don't support unjustified military spending.

Also, there's no causal connection between their military spending and the socially democratic nature of the state. But we're shifting from the point here. Military support or not, the original contention is that higher taxes should not be an automatic assumption of a worse off state. I'm sure that even with that unnecessary military bill, there is still lots of room left to invest in other things.

The same things that they were all rated highly upon - education, health, economic dynamism, etc.

 

[CDNBear]

Sure, they're not perfect either. And I don't support unjustified military spending.

Neither do I. Which is why I support replacing our antique F-18's with the F-35's. Not only do we get new jets, we support an entire industry in the process. Win win in my books.

Also, there's no causal connection between their military spending and the socially democratic nature of the state.

I agree, and they still have better equipped Armies then we do. Go figure.

But we're shifting from the point here. Military support or not, the original contention is that higher taxes should not be an automatic assumption of a worse off state. I'm sure that even with that unnecessary military bill, there is still lots of room left to invest in other things.

I would otherwise agree, if people we know would raise taxes didn't have a track record of, throwing money out windows, or demanding it be thrown out windows, to hug-a-thug, or special interest programs.

The same things that they were all rated highly upon - education, health, economic dynamism, etc.

And you think we lag simply because of what?

 

[Omicron]

Watching the news last night. Talking about the new fighter contract and the cost of it....
What the Conservatives were saying that each were to cost around 75 million a piece, but was recalculated be someone else and the real price was around 140 million a piece.....tho the Americans say thiers cost 110 /120 million.

Yeah , the more I hear , the less I want the Conservatives handling money.

Maybe it's not so much how they're handling the money as it is their vision of what to spend it on.

Like the prisons. You can spend many billions on prisons, or you can spend a few billion mediating the stresses causing people to go goon.

I mean, the whole notion of prisons was to keep locked-up someone who was fundamentally dangerous, but these days, the reality is if we find ourselves dealing with someone truly dangerous, a few of them get locked up in isolation forever, but most we stick in special asylums to be kept cranked on stupefying drugs full-time, which means really, we're using prisons mostly as a form of vicarious punishment, in which case, man-oh-man, if punishment is the issue, I can think of dozens of ways to make a punishment more fit the crime than a prison, and I bet you can too.

Likewise, in terms of what the vision is on how to spend money, I think the thing about F-35s is that they're so damned impressive.

I spent some time in and around Cold Lake, and I'm telling you, fighter craft are incredible things!

Even as a teen I was fascinated. All the other guys were into cars, but I wanted an F-15.

But *really*... what do we need?

The reality is, F-35s make sense if you're planning to do war on a large strategic scale, like invade and occupy an entire nation with accompanying bombers and armed columns on the ground, but by themselves, supporting a state of defensive alertness, they're just not very useful.

Canada's situation is we've got a huge territory to the north, including an archipelago becoming more accessible as the ice melts, and our issues are patrol, and an ability to chase off badgers when they start sniffing at the fence.

That means, when Russians start poking around with a wing to keep their pilots trained and to see what we're going to do, the best thing to chase them off is not an F-35... it's an F-22, which is way better for air-to-air engagements.

For the patrol aspect, F-35s are totally inefficient. These days, frankly, the most efficient is drones.

I'm not sure people understand just how much can be done with $35 billion when spent wisely.

For $35 billion, you can spend $12-$15 billion launching your own GPS satellite system. That leaves about $20 billion.

Take $5 billion and build the most insanely advanced Command and Control center on the planet.

That still leaves $15 billion.

Use $10 billion to order up 2000 drones from Bombardier (in order to keep the money in the country) at $4.8 million a pop. Use those to patrol the north, and the coastlines looking for drug-and-people smugglers, controlled by Canada's own GPS satellite network, commanded by glorified video-game players wearing head-sets laying back in easy chairs in the C&C center.

The remaining $5 billion can be spent on 5000 cruise missiles (also ordered from Bombardier in order to keep the money in the country) to to be carried by the drones and used if necessary.

That's what you can do with with $36 billion, and we'd actually be getting something for it... actual patrol of the north and the coastlines.

Or you can boondoggle it away on 65 very fancy over-sized Christmas-tree ornaments of limited value in a post-Cold War era.

Do Americans use F-35s in Afghanistan? No, they use drones.

Did Americans use F-35s to first-strike against Libya? No, they used cruise missiles.

Yeesh. People freaked about Cretien's cronies boondoggling $250 million and then took it out on Martin for being Minister of Finance - Canada's most effective Finance Minister - when it is the Minister of TBS (Treasury Board Secretariat) who was really responsible for letting that one slip through...

Well, a $36 billion boondoggle is 144 times the size of that mistargeted sponsorship scandal that Harper rode in on.

 

[CDNBear]

Like the prisons. You can spend many billions on prisons, or you can spend a few billion mediating the stresses causing people to go goon.

The proven fallacy of hug-a-thug nonsense.

I mean, the whole notion of prisons was to keep locked-up someone who was fundamentally dangerous, but these days, the reality is if we find ourselves dealing with someone truly dangerous, a few of them get locked up forever, but most we stick in special asylums to be kept cranked on stupefying drugs full-time, which means really, we're using prisons mostly as a form of vicarious punishment, in which case, man-oh-man, if punishment is the issue, I can think of dozens of ways to make a punishment more fit the crime than a prison, and I bet you can too.

Many of our prisons are well past their prime. These new ones will house many of the prisoners from said prisons.

The reality is, F-35s are something that makes sense if you're planning to do war on a large strategic scale, like invade and occupy an entire nation with accompanying bombers and armed columns on the ground, but by themselves in a state of defensive alertness, they're just not very useful.

And many military analysts disagree with you.

That means, when Russians start poking around with a wing to keep their pilots trained and to see what we're going to do, the best thing to chase them off with is not an F-35... it's an F-22, which is way better for air-to-air engagements.

And not for sale. But I digress. It also isn't being supplied by Canadian industry, like the F 35.

Or you can boondoggle it away on 65 very fancy over-sized Christmas-tree ornaments of very limited value in a post-Cold War era.

Do Americans use F-35s in Afghanistan? No, they use drones.

And the list of other aircraft contains...

AC 130's
A 10's
C 130's
F 117's
C 17's
F 15's
KC 10's
CV 22's

And the list goes on, because they don't just use drones.

Did Americans use F-35s in first-strike against Libya? No, they used cruise missiles.

Wanna try again?

3/20/2011 - RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AFNS) -- U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirits, F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16CJ Fighting Falcons launched during the early hours of March 20 in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which is centered on protecting Libyan citizens from any further harm from Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's regime.

Well, a $36 billion boondoggle is 144 times the size of that stupid and mistargeted sponsorship scandal.

And you think it should be all about money?

Oh ya, Harper is Darth Vader, Hitler and the boogieman all in one, I forgot.

 

[McRocket]

Imo, anyone that thinks that the F-35 is a better buy for Canada then, say, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet just does not understand Canada's situation.

The Super Hornet is about 40% of the cost of an F-35, has commonality with aspects of the present CF-188 (CF-18 ), can carry more ordinance at roughly the same speed and range and has two engines to the F-35's one.
And for those that do not remember or simply do not know - twin engines was a big factor in choosing the F-18 back in the '80's (over the F-16).
Long range arctic patrols and ground attack missions are far better served by twin engined aircraft then single.

The only edge the F-35 seems to have is it is stealthy (which, btw, is usually more costly to maintain then a regular aircraft). And what good will that do Canada over Afghanistan? None at all. Or over any other lower quality air defences. Not much.
Stealth is to penetrate strong air defences and/or to defeat aircraft equipped with radar guided missiles. Against AA fire and heat seeking missiles they offer almost no edge over a non-stealth aircraft. And low-level ground support missions in daylight - they offer none. And actually, because of the safety of it's twin engines - the F/A-18 E/F would have a big advantage over the F-35 in such a situation.
How many CF-18's has Canada lost in combat in the over 25 years they have been in service?

I think the answer is ZIP.

And remember - they were not the best choice when they were purchased as Canada could have purchased F-15's.

Military purchases (except during war) are always a compromise between capability and budget.

Also, the coalition has been imposing a no fly zone over Libya for a little while now. And all of the Brit and French planes are less stealthy then the F-35 is.
And how many of those have been shot down?

ZIP again.

Imo, the Super Hornet is a far better fit for Canada then the F-35.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

The federal Conservatives of Canada are running for re-election and they are asking for another chance to lead this great country of ours.

If Canadians were to look at their record as a government, did the Conservatives keep their promises or break them?

See my hosed thread for my take on this.

We've had five years of failure under Harper, I don't think the conservatives are even any good on the economy, it was the Liberals holding the line on bank mergers in the late 1990s early 2000s that left Canada in better shape than many other countries, not some brilliant conservative insight. Remember in late 2008 Harper was still telling us that things would be fine with the Canadian economy then a few months later jobs began dissappearing by the hundreds of thousands. We'd be in even better shape if we'd had a party in power that was in touch with reality.