Do The Conservatives Deserve Another Chance?

McRocket

Nominee Member
Mar 24, 2011
68
0
6
I will leave you to your opinion; I never intended on stifling debate, I was just identifying the obvious flaw in your reasoning. If you think I am that is fine. But there are plenty of gullible people who would rather base their opinion on innuendo than fact.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Then I ask you to please present me unbiased, factual proof that my statement is wrong.

I cannot (to my knowledge) factually prove my statement is right.

But you cannot do the opposite (imo).


Frankly, you sound like someone who is a little too attached to Harper as a politician.

I have no attachment to any Canadian politician whatsoever.

I think they all (that I am aware of - and I freely admit I know only a few of them) suck.

First of all, the F-35 buy was set in motion by the Chretien Liberals.........who spent money on the aircrafts' development.

I did not agree with it then.

But that was a token gesture that is tiny in comparison to the actual purchase of the plane itself.

I don't care who bought the things - they are wrong for Canada - period (for reason I have stated above).


And if you had bothered to read my statement - I blamed all parties for the budget deficit. But no leader of a party was more publicly against fiscal deficits then Harper and yet he is the one who chose to present the largest fiscal deficit by FAR in Canadian history. That makes him a hypocrite as well as financially incompetent. Just another loser politician who trades other people's money for votes.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Yup, where would we be if Joe had been re-elected with a majority? Probably out of debt. Too bad the guy had the personality of a piece of lint. Unfortunately, that is what most people care about.

Yeah, as opposed to Trudeau who wowed every airhead in the country. :lol:
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
I can tell you what the DND probably want (no matter what they say in public). They want the best plane and they could care less what it costs (which is understandable).

No. They want the best plane to do what they are required to do. They, more than politicians, understand what is involved long term with regards to upkeep and logistics. For example, Canada now has fighter jets operating out of Italy. Is there a benefit to have both NATO partners operating and maintaining the same planes?

I care only what is best for Canada.

Then you should support a buying process that takes the decision out of the hands of politicians. The governments job should be to allocate funds and not get involved in the buying process.

I am no military expert and even I know the F-35 is a ridiculous purchase for Canada. Especially during a time when there is a record deficit with no end in sight and no urgent need for a new fighter jet of monumental cost. Plus, by not inviting competitive bids, you take away any incentive for Lockheed Martin to sweeten the deal to sway the vote their way. it's simple business common sense.

Government is not business.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
12,395
1,367
113
60
Alberta
Then I ask you to please present me unbiased, factual proof that my statement is wrong.

I cannot (to my knowledge) factually prove my statement is right.

But you cannot do the opposite (imo).


Frankly, you sound like someone who is a little too attached to Harper as a politician.

I have no attachment to any Canadian politician whatsoever.

I think they all (that I am aware of - and I freely admit I know only a few of them) suck.

I will counter with: Show me unbiased factual proof that Jack Layton is not a cannibal. You can't. He might be, he might not have been arrested yet.

This is a pointy headed argument that gets nowhere. Prove to me that he has a hidden agenda, show me his power hungry blueprint. You can't. Thinking it isn't proving it.

You or I can make all the baseless claims we want, but without credible evidence the best we can come up with is innuendo.

Conspiracy nuts do this all the time.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
You or I can make all the baseless claims we want, but without credible evidence the best we can come up with is innuendo.

There is credible evidence. You just wish to ignore it. The fact is that the Conservatives (including Harper) attack the Liberal lust for power by pointing to the coalition...a coalition that Harper was willing to embrace a few years ago. Anybody that would embrace the separatist to gain power is in it for the power and not the good of the country. That includes all the leaders.
 

McRocket

Nominee Member
Mar 24, 2011
68
0
6
No. They want the best plane to do what they are required to do. They, more than politicians, understand what is involved long term with regards to upkeep and logistics.

Why would the DND care about logistics and parts if the government procures enough of both?

I was (briefly) in the military.

When you are in the field - you could care less what the thing costs - you care about how well it works and for how long.

And I guarantee you that the mission availability of the F-35 will be FAR inferior then the F-18E/F will be.

Plus, do you want to be on an Arctic patrol in a plane with one engine or two? The U.S. Navy always has preferred two for obvious reasons. The only reason they took the F-35 is they had no choice (the competitor - the F-32 - also had only one engine).
Plus, the one of the reasons the DND did not want the F-16 during the last procurement round was because it was single engined to the F/A-18's twin engines.

Of course, having typed that...maybe the DND does not want the F-35.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
12,395
1,367
113
60
Alberta
There is credible evidence. You just wish to ignore it. The fact is that the Conservatives (including Harper) attack the Liberal lust for power by pointing to the coalition...a coalition that Harper was willing to embrace a few years ago. Anybody that would embrace the separatist to gain power is in it for the power and not the good of the country. That includes all the leaders.

Show me a Conservative/NDP/Bloc coalition.

They signed a deal for cooperation, some years ago when sitting in opposition, but there is a distinct difference. The Conservatives have never signed onto a coalition. Never tried to seize power in this manner. I think the Prime Minister was pretty clear when asked about that on Saturday and it seemed the press took his answer at face value.

If you can provide some documentation to back up your accusation I'll gladly read it and respond in turn.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,165
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
I would give Harper more thought if he had a personality and a sense of humour.

I want to hear my PM talk about how he is pissed that traffic is insane.

I want a PM that shows up at the Legion bingo in Wadena out of the blue.

I want a PM that isn't afraid to walk to the store with me to buy smokes after dark with snipers or CSIS freaks hiding in the bushes.

I wanta PM that doesn't lie and if caught lieing is willing to step aside.

I want a PM that lobbys the people not one that wastes time being lobbied by coroporate and special ass licking interest groups.

I want a PM that can play hockey.

I want a PM that flies coach.

I want a PM that eats Hamburger Helper.

I want a PM who can pick his own tie.

I want a PM that runs outside in his gonch to buy an ice cream when the truck comes by.

I don't think Harper is that kinda guy.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
I can tell you what the DND probably want (no matter what they say in public). They want the best plane and they could care less what it costs (which is understandable). And that would obviously be the F-35.
And I don't care at all what the government wants - because odds are they are going to get kickbacks/payoffs/perks for their decision in some form or another. If not now, then after they leave politics when it's legal. They watched the Mulroney trial and there is NO WAY they will makes those mistakes.
I care only what is best for Canada.

As I posted on the Globe and Mail website:

'So each F-35 will cost 132 million each. Compare that to the F-18E (the 'Super Hornet') cost of $55 million each.
The F-18E can carry more ordinance, is faster, slightly longer ranged and has a few parts in common with the current F/A-18 that Canada uses. Also, it has 2 engines to the F-35's one - something the Canadian Air Force made a big deal about when they chose the F-18. And will cost substantially less to maintain (stealthy aircraft cost more for maintenance). And what does the F-35 have? It's stealthy (though not apparently as much as the F-22). What good will that do Canada? How many air-to-air combat's has the CF-18 gotten into? Not many. They are ground pounders. Primarily against unsophisticated targets (like in Afghanistan). And stealth will mean ZIP when attacking unsophisticated targets.
The F/A-18E makes far more sense. It is more capable, far more suited to the missions it will be used in and is FAR, FAR cheaper. I don't care who did this deal - libs or cons. It is bad for Canada...period.'

'Also, all development costs have probably long been paid on the F/A-18E/F. Not so the F-35.

And with the U.S. military undoubtedly going to reduce it's F-35 purchases, that will raise the per unit price as the development costs must be spread out over less airframes - which is the main reason the F-22 Raptor skyrocketed in per unit cost.'



I am no military expert and even I know the F-35 is a ridiculous purchase for Canada. Especially during a time when there is a record deficit with no end in sight and no urgent need for a new fighter jet of monumental cost. Plus, by not inviting competitive bids, you take away any incentive for Lockheed Martin to sweeten the deal to sway the vote their way. it's simple business common sense.

You deal with the "unsophisticated" with good ground forces and whatever else you have at hand.......the F 35 will do that job, without unnecessary risk.

You arm for the most sophisticated enemy possible.....you have heard of China?

How about Russia?

Iran??

You can NOT predict the future.....as I pointed out, 2 months ago you'd have told me I was nuts if I said we would be in a combat mission in Libya.......you have to be ready for the worst.

So....if the F 35 is the best air superiority fighter, and has a ground attack capability........the F 35 it is..
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
An article by a conservative columnists, LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Both Liberals and Tories have bargained for power: Goldstein

In politics, everybody deals

The relevant question to ask Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in the election isn’t whether he’s prepared to form a coalition government if neither the Liberals nor Conservatives win a majority of seats.

It’s how many New Democrat MPs is he willing to put in his cabinet and in what jobs?

Following the 2008 vote, which elected a Conservative minority government, then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion announced in a deal initially supported by Ignatieff, that he was ready to form a coalition government, backed by the Bloc Quebecois, and led by a 24-member cabinet.

In that cabinet, six portfolios — excluding finance — would have gone to the NDP, with the New Democrats also naming six parliamentary secretaries.

On Saturday, Ignatieff said he won't follow Dion’s lead by trying to form a coalition government. But that's what Dion said before he did it, so it comes down to an issue of trust.

That said, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s allegation that such a coalition would be undemocratic is silly.

While it might be controversial with voters — depending on how the parties fare on election day — there’s nothing unconstitutional or undemocratic about such a deal.

Indeed, it’s really only on the issue of cabinet seats that the Conservatives and Liberals disagree (or, rather, have disagreed in the past) when it comes to the question of governing in a minority parliament.

After all, Harper was ready to form a minority government with himself as prime minister, backed by the NDP and Bloc, following the 2004 election, in the event the then-Liberal minority government of Paul Martin lost an early confidence vote in the House.

Harper said as much in a Sept. 9, 2004 letter to then-gov. gen. Adrienne Clarkson signed by him, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe.

Harper also gave an interview to the CBC at the time in which he made it clear he was willing to work co-operatively with the NDP and Bloc, although he stopped short of a formal coalition deal in which any other party would have seats at the cabinet table.
While Harper can thus justifiably argue he has never proposed a coalition similar to the aborted Liberal/NDP one backed by the Bloc in 2008, he isn’t justified in portraying Ignatieff as a power-mad opportunist willing to cut deals with socialists and separatists to grab power.

In fact, cutting deals with socialists and/or separatists is a necessity for any governing party in a Canadian minority parliament.
Indeed, both the Conservatives under Harper and before them, the Liberals under Martin, did it all the time.

Dion tried and failed in 2008 only because Harper was able to convince then gov.-gen Michaelle Jean to prorogue Parliament before the Liberal/NDP, Bloc-backed coalition was able to bring down his government on a confidence motion.

The reality is a minority parliament can’t function without strategic co-operation between the government and at least one or two opposition parties, depending on the seat counts coming out of any election that fails to deliver a majority government.
Besides, coalitions, or quasi-coalitions, don’t have to share seats in cabinet in order to be effective.

The Liberal and NDP parties in Ontario in 1985 agreed to a specific legislative agenda instead, following that year’s provincial election.
This resulted in a Liberal minority government led by David Peterson, backed by the NDP, driving the Tories out of power after 42 consecutive years in office, even though the Tories technically “won” the election, winning 52 seats to the Liberals’ 48.

Rather than give the NDP cabinet seats, Peterson became premier by signing a written accord of legislative accomplishments the Liberals and NDP agreed to pass within the following two years.

Representing the NDP in those negotiations was, ironically, then-party leader Bob Rae, who, in 1990, went on to become the NDP premier of Ontario. Today, he’s a Liberal MP.

All of which simply underscores the fact that politics makes for very strange bedfellows.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I love this coalition thing, it should be pointed out the Conservatives wanted to
have one with the NDP to get rid of the Liberals. Speaking of coalitions and the
legitimacy of government, Most of Europe is run by coalitions in the Parliaments.
Britain have a legitimate government that is a coalition of Conservatives and
Liberal Democrats, Israel is a coalition government, and we are going to get
bogged down in a coalition instead of talking about real issues. Personally I think
a coalition would be preferable to a Harper Government, but that is one person's
opinion so be it.
I think a government that presented itself as one going to be transparent, though
for government I don't know how it would be possible, and for a government that
was going to manage the books, they have done a lousy job.
Its the most secretive government in fifty years, and the country has a fifty five
billion dollar shortfall, a deficit for this year alone. Sure by the standard of western
economies we are a little better, but western economies are destitute and broke.
This government has not done a good job while in office. We don't know what Iggy
would do, we haven't given him a mandate to govern. It is also unlikely that we will.
Jack is not there yet, he has to appeal more to the middle.
The Greens Good God they are little more than a herd of miscreant leprechauns
going forth with the collection plate of the new green religion. Everything will be
organic and green whether it needs to be or not. If someone thinks Harper is a problem
the Greens have the biggest potential to be the tyrants of our age in this country,
now they have the ability to do real harm to our country. They are a movement not a
real political party, with some strange ideas when you match them up to reality.
I can't wait to see what a monster of circumstance we elect for a House of Commons
after May second. This is more about entertainment than running a business.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Didn't take you very long to peg CB.
And like yourself, just because you finally get the square peg in the round hole, doesn't make you correct, or intelligent.

So that's what is required to have tone. I didn't read your links but maybe I should now because I didn't realize that that was a requirement for establishing tone.
That's obviously not all that is required, but seeing as I actually read the exchange before playing with McR. I got the gist of his position and the tone of the conversation.

I have seen his type before online many times.
I doubt it.

They (imo) do not come here to have open debates and treat others as equals so much as they (usually seem) to come on here to try and put others down so as to make themselves feel more important.
And you think telling us you believe Harper is all you claim, without any form of evidence or example is debate?

No wonder you and Joey get along so well. You share the exact same lack of skills.

I would use the word pathetic to describe you two.

Makes one wonder if they treat people in the real world like that - condescend and belittle whenever the mood strikes them.
Only when I come across people like you two.

I have no problem with put downs. If you aren't sure what somebody is saying though, you should ask for clarity.
Ya, your MO is full of that nicety.

I have never seen you, or SJP concede to fact. Just move goal posts, twist words and play games. It's all you have. Because you certainly can't debate.
That is CB's problem. He attacks people for what he perceives their position to be and then is probably too embarrassed to apologize so tries to twist everything around.
Keep making it up. I've conceded to Gh, Unf and a few others in the last few weeks. Unlike you, I'm adult enough and understand that in a debate, you sometimes have to concede to fact.

I have no qualms about conceding when proven wrong. You just think I do, because I haven't had to concede to you. You haven't formulated or supported an opinion or claim that I haven't been able to tear apart and prove erroneous. With of all things, evidence.

Have fun with it because it won't change.
Of course not. So long as you act like Joey, you will get treated like Joey.

He don't "sit on the fence" too much. :smile:
To true.
 
Last edited:

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
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?

It has nothing to do with keeping or breaking promises.

They do not have the moral or ethical authority to be given a second chance. They do not deserve it. I would rather vote for another party which may or may not behave better, but it is a guarantee that re-electing the Conservatives is rewarding their behaviour. Anyone who could not give Oda the boot is not worthy of serving as my government.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
It has nothing to do with keeping or breaking promises.

They do not have the moral or ethical authority to be given a second chance. They do not deserve it. I would rather vote for another party which may or may not behave better, but it is a guarantee that re-electing the Conservatives is rewarding their behaviour. Anyone who could not give Oda the boot is not worthy of serving as my government.
Oda, pandering to Quebec, caving to the opposition and creating a deficit we didn't need, his failure to have a gov't that was transparent and accountable.

His list of misdeeds is substantial.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Indeed so. And as a parent, I don't reward a string of misdeeds by my kids, and there's no way I'm going to reward this sort of behaviour by a political party.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
12,395
1,367
113
60
Alberta

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Indeed so. And as a parent, I don't reward a string of misdeeds by my kids, and there's no way I'm going to reward this sort of behaviour by a political party.
You make a valid point.

But who do vote for then?

The Liberals have a list that makes Harpers look like a laundry list. The NDP just isn't the kind of gov't I want and I already tried the protest vote when I voted green.

I'd like to think my ballot counted. Throwing it at the Greens, just didn't feel like it did.

Sorry, but I find Jack Laytons testimony on the matter rather suspect. I'll tell you what though Cannuck, I will dig around myself and if I find something backing up your claim that is not opinion based I will concede that you were right.
You can do that too? You know, it would surprise the hell out of me, the day he actually concedes to something.