Do The Conservatives Deserve Another Chance?

[CDNBear]

Okaaaay.

So I take it you don't believe that a tone can be set in script?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setting_tone

I truly hate wikiality, but it was the best of the links I could find.

Have a VERY nice day.

Keep posting. Although I have errands to run, so I might be gone for a while. Rest assured, I shall return.

 

[McRocket]

Then how can you believe it?

The same way you (and the other guy) believe that I am wrong.

You make a judgement based on the evidence presented to you.


I really had to explain that?

Oh, let me guess...your answer will contain some insult, a misquote of something I said plus a statement I made taken out of context and concluded with a long drawn out, condescending remark.


Whereas mine concludes with a simple...


...have a nice day.

 

[CDNBear]

The same way you (and the other guy) believe that I am wrong.

I've never said you were wrong, I asked you to prove it.

You make a judgement based on the evidence presented to you.

Yes I do. You haven't presented any evidence. So I don't believe you.

I really had to explain that?

You should actually try doing it before you try preaching it.

Oh, let me guess...your answer will contain some insult, a misquote of something I said plus a statement I made taken out of context and concluded with a long drawn out, condescending remark.

Well, sans any substance, your posts beg nothing but that kind of contempt.

And if you think I'm bad, wait until Cannuck, or Joey as he is more appropriately called, sets his sights on you. You won't be cuddling up to him then.

You see, with me, he can't debate, because I rely on evidence, where he relies on his imagination. So instead, he prefers to troll me. So now he's your buddy, but mark my words, he'll be at you like a fat kid on a green M&M when it suits him.

But don't worry, you two should be entertaining, neither of you actually use reality and evidence to support a position, so it should prove to be one funny encounter after another.

Whereas mine concludes with a simple...


...have a nice day.

And mine keep ending with "Keep posting", because like Joey, your imagination is as entertaining as hell.

 

[McRocket]

So I take it you don't believe that a tone can be set in script?

Setting tone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I truly hate wikiality, but it was the best of the links I could find.

I see. My tone?

In all my time debating online, that is the first time that I can recall anyone using that excus--er - reason.

Noted.

'I know you said 'no' to us having sex baby. But your tone said otherwise'.
'I know you said I was fired sir. But your tone said I deserve a raise'.

LOL


May you have a truly nice day.

BTW - what is the tone of that last sentence in your mind?

because I rely on evidence,

And when you run out of that...you rely on 'tone'.




Have a day filled with people emitting remarks whose tone brings you happiness.

 

[CDNBear]

I see. My tone?

Yes, irrational and hyperbolic.

In all my time debating online, that is the first time that I can recall anyone using that excus--er - reason.

Well, I'm glad I raised the bar for you.

Noted.

I doubt it.

'I know you said 'no' to us having sex baby. But your tone said otherwise'.
'I know you said I was fired sir. But your tone said I deserve a raise'.

LOL

Yes, that asinine comparison is as, well... as asinine as Joey's.

May you have a truly nice day.

Keep posting.

BTW - what is the tone of that last sentence in your mind?

It doesn't have one, because it wasn't wrapped in or preceded by outrageous, unsupported, ideologically based claims.

And when you run out of that...you rely on 'tone'.

It all adds up.

Have a day filled with people emitting remarks whose tone brings you happiness.

Keep posting.

 

[JLM]

The first answer to your question is NO. Harper is slick but I hope he has
done his last campaign. I have problems with all of them. The deficit is a
real problem billions in spending and billions not yet mentioned. Remember
the Jets are ordered we pay regardless.
And some of this stuff about everyone has skeletons. Who cares who's
father was in another party or even if they were once a member or another
party years ago? We have to deal with the here and now.
Even when it comes to Harper, I don't care if he was once a Liberal back in
the day, I would not even care if he was a fiscal conservative. I am concerned
by the fact he is a social conservative and was of course part of that Reform
Crowd.
Jack is alright he is at least true to his principles, and Iggy yes he spent time in
the United States and blah blah blah. These things have no bearing on political world
of today.
Politics are a living breathing entity and they change from time to time. We should
be concentrating on the issues of the day and who is going to handle them.
We don't need more prisons in fact the serious crime rate is going down.
We don't need the jets, although we do need choppers
We don't need to make criminals out of people with a poke of pot
We don't need a deficit of 50 billion plus and that is yearly.

Remember, once the year is out, that deficit becomes part of the debt. Remember
how the Tories chanted about Liberal Government Spending and over spending?
They are now spending more than anyone. In addition the Conservatives are using
the government department commercials just like the Liberals did and the Tories
criticized.
We can go on all day about who did what, what we need to do is determine what is
important and set a course to solve our problems. My biggest problem with the
Conservatives is they are setting a rigid course without compromise and that is a
sign they intend to be heavy handed with a majority, the also create a polarized
state of mind.
I think the end result for me will be Jack Layton, and the reason is with Harper as a
leader can't vote for them. With Iggy, I just don't feel he can set a new course for us.
The Greens are a joke, the Bloc is not on the radar, that leave Jack Layton and the
NDP.

I've been trying to figure out whose questions you are responding to as there is no reference. All I want to add here is if either Layton or Ignatieff form Gov't. Harper's deficit will look like the money in a kid's piggy bank. There's lots I don't like about Harper, but better the "Devil we know than the ones we don't". :smile:

 

[Cannuck]

Oh, let me guess...your answer will contain some insult, a misquote of something I said plus a statement I made taken out of context and concluded with a long drawn out, condescending remark.

Didn't take you very long to peg CB.

"BTW - what is the tone of that last sentence in your mind?"

It doesn't have one, because it wasn't wrapped in or preceded by outrageous, unsupported, ideologically based claims.

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.

 

[McRocket]

Didn't take you very long to peg CB.

I have seen his type before online many times.

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.

Sad.

Makes one wonder if they treat people in the real world like that - condescend and belittle whenever the mood strikes them.

I sincerely hope not.

 

[Cannuck]

I have seen his type before online many times.

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.

I have no problem with put downs. If you aren't sure what somebody is saying though, you should ask for clarity. 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. Have fun with it because it won't change.

 

[JLM]

I have no problem with put downs. If you aren't sure what somebody is saying though, you should ask for clarity. 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. Have fun with it because it won't change.

He don't "sit on the fence" too much. :smile:

 

[McRocket]

I have no problem with put downs. If you aren't sure what somebody is saying though, you should ask for clarity. 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. Have fun with it because it won't change.

I don't mind put downs if there is a point to them.

I do mind them when they are used as a means to an end in a debate. Like a way to deflect criticism or to get a subject off-course (not that I am saying he was doing that, I do not know)

I certainly do see what you mean with the twisting words part though.

Tone?!?
Man, just admit you misjudged what I typed and move on. No big deal. But instead, it has to be given a life of it's own in a pointless debate.




BTW - I realize I did not give any reasons for my opinion about Harper.

Primarily because I feel that it will convince no one of anything as my experience is that the vast majority of those who post on chat forums are INCREDIBLY stubborn (as I can be sometimes).

BUt I still should give some justification for saying 'I honestly believe Harper is a power hungry, emotionally unbalanced person who cares far more about staying in power then he does in making Canada a better country - imo.'

I believe this for many reasons. Some of which include:

- his condemnation of the Liberals/NDP to try and oust him a few years back with a coaltion that included the Bloc when he himself tried to form a coaltion - with the Bloc - to try and oust the Liberals. Extreme hypocrisy on that one.
- that pathetically childish walk in the snow to the Governor General's house to try and avoid his government falling and lining the streets with PC workers to make it look like he had more support then he did.
- that many of his speeches in the past, before he was leader of the conservatives, seemed to have an extremely pro-American bent to them.
- that he has claimed to be fiscally responsible and yet right from the get go he has been absolutely anything but and has run up the largest deficits in Canadian history.
- his continual closing down of Parliament for weeks/months at a time on the slightest whim. It's common knowledge that he has a contempt for the place (imo).
- the continual media reports of his near-paranoia about controlling everything his people say. He will not allow anyone to say anything to the media unless it is cleared with the PMO (at least - that is what I read, on several occasions).
- his attempt to ram rod the F-35 purchase through government and the absolutely ridiculous notion of not getting competitive bids on different aircraft.
- his obvious love for almost all things George W. Bush (a HORRIFIC president) had to say.
- just do a Google search on 'Harper - control freak' and you will get tons of opinions and facts supporting such a claim.

And that is only the beginning.


Am I saying that the other leaders do not share many of these 'qualities'? Of course not.

Personally, I think they are all useless and will do more harm then good for Canada if elected.

But I never recall a Prime Minister that seems SO power hungry and so paranoid about controlling every little tiny bit that he can control as Harper appears to be.

He is, imo, a completely useless Prime Minister and I would sooner have either Iggy or Layton run the country then Harper. They would both screw it up also - but I think they would screw it up less then Harper is.

 

[Cannuck]

BUt I still should give some justification for saying 'I honestly believe Harper is a power hungry, emotionally unbalanced person who cares far more about staying in power then he does in making Canada a better country - imo.'

I believe this for many reasons. Some of which include:

The conservatives and their supporters have zero cred where it comes to the issue of the supposed coalition. Harper tried to get into bed with the Bloc himself so clearly, he is in it for the power. As for the rest of your arguments, The F-35, Conservative fiscal irresponsibility and Harper's love of Dubya are not really an issue when discussing Harper's hunger for power. That said, I have to say that nobody but Conservatives believe the Conservatives are fiscally conservative.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Nice to see this Thread come back on topic.

"Do the Conservatives deserve another Chance?" Hmmm....maybe not if there was
another reasonable alternative, but there really doesn't seem to be one at this point
in time. Really, look at what we have to choose from. Doesn't leave a whole lot of
choice.

Maybe when the Lib's have a different leader and have found their way back out'a
their own stink of scandals, or when the NDP turns more towards the center of the
political spectrum in a realistic attempt to gain more than 15% of the fringe vote,
or when the Green Party ditches Ms. May who had already stepped out'a the
Leadership role to accept a Senatorship position from a Coalition that fell
apart before they'd even finished purchasing Lizzy's loyalty, or when the Bloc
becomes an option for more than just the province of Quebec....

.....but at this point? It is what it is, so in my opinion, I guess the Conservatives
do deserve another chance at governing this nation.

 

[McRocket]

The conservatives and their supporters have zero cred where it comes to the issue of the supposed coalition. Harper tried to get into bed with the Bloc himself so clearly, he is in it for the power. As for the rest of your arguments, The F-35, Conservative fiscal irresponsibility and Harper's love of Dubya are not really an issue when discussing Harper's hunger for power. That said, I have to say that nobody but Conservatives believe the Conservatives are fiscally conservative.

My points were:

F-35 - Harper excluded all competing bids and competition from the process. That, to me, is unheard of and absolutely ridiculous. To me, it seems he wanted the F-35's and he did not care what anyone else wanted. Same with the Leopard 2's (though I think they were a good buy - the Leopard 1's were a joke in terms of crew protection - but there are plenty of tanks that can do the job).

Fiscal Irresponsibility - he had preached up and down about it before he was elected. Then he gets elected and he abandons it more then any Canadian government in history. Though I am quite sure all the parties would have acted so fiscally irresponsibly - so....

His love of Dubya - W. was famous for having complete contempt for the media and his administration's constant attempts to control a frighteningly large amount of the government. I do not fault Harper for liking Bush Jr.. I fault him for agreeing with so much of the terrible things Bush Jr. did.

Nice to see this Thread come back on topic.

"Do the Conservatives deserve another Chance?" Hmmm....maybe not if there was
another reasonable alternative, but there really doesn't seem to be one at this point
in time. Really, look at what we have to choose from. Doesn't leave a whole lot of
choice.

Maybe when the Lib's have a different leader and have found their way back out'a
their own stink of scandals, or when the NDP turns more towards the center of the
political spectrum in a realistic attempt to gain more than 15% of the fringe vote,
or when the Green Party ditches Ms. May who had already stepped out'a the
Leadership role to accept a Senatorship position from a Coalition that fell
apart before they'd even finished purchasing Lizzy's loyalty, or when the Bloc
becomes an option for more than just the province of Quebec....

.....but at this point? It is what it is, so in my opinion, I guess the Conservatives
do deserve another chance at governing this nation.

Imo, the PC's are ahead not because Harper is so great.

They are ahead because the leaders of the Libs have been so inept - including their present one. Smart or not, he is horrible at communicating and his positions seem to drift with the wind on many issues (though not all).

I did really enjoy his Yugoslavia doc from a few years back though.

 

[Cannuck]

F-35 - Harper excluded all competing bids and competition from the process. That, to me, is unheard of and absolutely ridiculous.

Not to me. If the F-35 is what they want then that is what they should get. The real question is what did the top brass at DND want.

 

[JLM]

The conservatives and their supporters have zero cred where it comes to the issue of the supposed coalition. Harper tried to get into bed with the Bloc himself so clearly, he is in it for the power. As for the rest of your arguments, The F-35, Conservative fiscal irresponsibility and Harper's love of Dubya are not really an issue when discussing Harper's hunger for power. That said, I have to say that nobody but Conservatives believe the Conservatives are fiscally conservative.

I don't think any of them are fiscally conservative (spend whatever it takes to ensure another term at the trough beefing up their pensions) However it's pretty hard to be any less conservative than those who would hoist an election on us we neither want nor need. Scandals involving individual M.P.s (ala Helena Guergis) don't warrant $300 million. Ignatieff and Layton yap about seniors hardships- well they ain't half as hard since Harper brought in pension splitting. :smile: If Harper could be replaced by someone like Joe Clark I'd vote for it in a Hollywood minute- but realistically ain't about to happen.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

MRocket: Your initial statement was gullible. It is based on stereotypes presented by political pundits and equally gullible people perpetuating fabrications because they differ ideologically from the PM. Harper could be a serial killer who hunts Liberals with a double sided axe, but there is nothing to support that claim.

Raising such falsehoods and using them as evidence is about as logical as listening to Jenny McCarthy regarding vaccinations causing autism. There is no evidence to support the claim, but a large group of people base their opinion on a flawed study that was discredited. The same applies to 911 conspiracy nuts, you can show them the facts, you can ask them pointed questions and they usually become shrill and animated.

The same applies to the aura of (supposed diabolical asperations) of Prime Minister Harper. People ranted about his so called secret agenda. You assume that he is power hungry. These are not based in fact, they are based on innuendo. Even the recent scandals have not been linked directly to the PM, but there are those who will claim that they are because they have a visceral hate for the man, though they really don’t know him.

Here's a great example from the campaign from Paul Martin campaign from 2006.


YouTube - 2006 Liberal Attack Ad

You said a couple of pages ago that you really hated these multiple quote replies, yet you continued to engage Bear over and over and over. Cannuck comes galloping in, as he always does, to troll, because that is his contribution to most threads.

CDNBear will roll you around on the carpet like a cat playing with a small piece of poop for his amusement and though Cannuck will deny he’s nothing but a troll, Bear will tell you outright that he is doing it purely for entertainment.

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 wrong that is fine. But there are plenty of gullible people who would rather base their opinion on innuendo than fact.

Cheers
M

 

[McRocket]

Not to me. If the F-35 is what they want then that is what they should get. The real question is what did the top brass at DND want.

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.

 

[Cannuck]

If Harper could be replaced by someone like Joe Clark I'd vote for it in a Hollywood minute- but realistically ain't about to happen.

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.

 

[Colpy]

My points were:

F-35 - Harper excluded all competing bids and competition from the process. That, to me, is unheard of and absolutely ridiculous. To me, it seems he wanted the F-35's and he did not care what anyone else wanted. Same with the Leopard 2's (though I think they were a good buy - the Leopard 1's were a joke in terms of crew protection - but there are plenty of tanks that can do the job).

Fiscal Irresponsibility - he had preached up and down about it before he was elected. Then he gets elected and he abandons it more then any Canadian government in history. Though I am quite sure all the parties would have acted so fiscally irresponsibly - so....

His love of Dubya - W. was famous for having complete contempt for the media and his administration's constant attempts to control a frighteningly large amount of the government. I do not fault Harper for liking Bush Jr.. I fault him for agreeing with so much of the terrible things Bush Jr. did.




Imo, the PC's are ahead not because Harper is so great.

They are ahead because the leaders of the Libs have been so inept - including their present one. Smart or not, he is horrible at communicating and his positions seem to drift with the wind on many issues (though not all).

I did really enjoy his Yugoslavia doc from a few years back though.

First of all, the F-35 buy was set in motion by the Chretien Liberals.........who spent money on the aircrafts' development.
Secondly, the F-18s are 30 years old......and the Liberals do NOT have a good track record on military procurement. remember the Seaking Thing? Chretien canceling the chopper contract? A disaster.
Third: we have a small efficient military, we need the best, not the cheapest.

Fiscal responsibility? Surely you jest.......each and every budget has been approved by the opposition.........indeed, massive intervention was demanded by the opposition.......and now they want more money.........

Love of Dubya?

Oh gimme a break! He was not insulting to our closest allies............

But you should remember the Count was all for invading Iraq as well.......as was I.

As for the Count being incompetent....now that I agree with.