How will a Conservative government be better?
- Thread starter DasFX
- Start date
- Status
Okay I will. Now I'll ask you what you think of the private clinics in Quebec? I know here in Alberta every time it is even mentioned, the Liberals go nuts, but say nothing about Quebec. What does anyone else think about this imbalance? Why can Quebec have this but no one else can even discuss it? Is it because the Liberals continue to pander to Quebec and could care less about Western Canada? Getting back to the topic of the thread, maybe this is another way the Conservatives will be better, take out the imbalance that currently exists. As MMMike has also said on this and other threads, the Conservatives will also give back the rights and responsbibilities to the provinces which are guaranteed by the Constitution, not merely "deemed to have been written in". All this plus lower taxes is how the Conservatives will be better, and far less corrupt, despite what others say about past Conservative governments. Truth is, we KNOW the current Liberal government is corrupt, and we KNOW that the current Conservative is not, despite false and silly accusations of hidden agendas, destroying health care, selling out to the US, etc. Supporting the US is not selling out. Hell, I even supported the Good Reverend on the Mad Cow thread, but I don't think this means I sold out to his viewpoints. (Actually, I'm postive it didn't!)
They should be shut down. They are different than what Alberta is proposing though. The private clinics in Quebec operate completely outside of the system. That is legal, at least arguably, under the Canada Health Act. The proposals in Alberta are for private clinics operating withing the system, which is illegal under the Canada Health Act.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Funny, they gave you billions for mad cow. They gave you a whack for the drought too. They have subsidized the oil industry that made you rich. Are you kettle or the pot?
How are they going to do that? Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta are ones screaming about the fiscal imbalance. You will get no agreement between those provinces when you start talking about who gets what. The Atlantic provinces are happy with the Atlantic Accord and aren't going back to the table, or is Harper going to rip that up now? He liked it before. BC might play along with Alberta depending on it's fiscal situation that year. Saskatchewan will play along on oil revenues, but nothing else. Manitoba is going to demand a lot because we are about to become a major electricity supplier. The Territories are going to scream bloody murder.
Counting the PM, that's fourteen people in a room fighting like banshees, each with it's own agenda. In the end something will get cobbled together that's even less equitable to somebody than what we have now, then it will all start again.
A real negotiator...somebody with vision, the ability to build concensus, and a plan may be able to get a good deal for everybody, but Harper has shown no sign of being that somebody. His tactics are divisive and zero sum.
And how are you going to pay for them? Without federal money only Alberta and Ontario can afford those things. That's why there are transfer payments and why the feds are, quite legitimately, part of the process.
Without the taxes, the money isn't there for the programs. In the last election there were a lot of questions from economists about Harper's numbers. Layton's platform was endorsed by many, Harper's was endorsed only by his partisan friends.
We know no such thing. We know that some non-politicians in the Liberal Party are corrupt. We know that there has been corruption, past and present, involving members of the Conservative caucus and their party machinery.
Much of the hidden agenda that Stephen Harper was accused of in the last election is now official party policy. That doesn't make it any more palatable to most Canadians. Officailly adopting bigotry doesn't make him any less of a bigot. He is still trying to deny the health care thing, but his biggest supporters and friends are certainly headed towards a US-style system. He has flip-flopped on Kyoto so many times that we know he's lying, we just don't know to who.
Supporting the US to the detriment of Canadians and/or against the will of Canadians is selling out.
The Conservatives sold you out on that though. After all of the money that our government gave to Cargill (that's your tax money), Cargill (a major contributor to the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives) took that money as corporate profit and shipped it off to the US (where our cattle can't go) instead of passing it on to Canadian beef producers.
A parliamentary committee was set up. Cargill refused to open their books for the committee. The committee found them in contempt of parliament. To impose fines for that infraction the committee needed unanimous consent. The Conservatives on the committee refused to give that consent.
During that first year of the BSE crisis, the year when Cargill got all of that money (your tax money), Cargill turned the highest profits ever. They did that while Canadian cattle producers were losing everything. They did that without lowering the prices that Canadian consumers pay for beef.
So tell me again how the Conservatives aren't corrupt and wouldn't sell us out. They are already doing it and they aren't even in power.
For the REv:
Okay, here we go:
Private Clinics in Quebec: so operating totally outside the system is okay, but trying to do the same thing within the system is wrong? Are you saying that Alberta should ignore the Canada Health Act and do what Quebec has done and simply allow private clinics?
Mad Cow: First of all, don't think that all the money went to Alberta, the assistance went to all cattle producers across the country. Alberta also provided assistance to it's ranchers as well. In addition, this goes way beyond just farmers, with truckers, truck dealerships, grain and feed producers and sellers, so this assistance from both the feds and provinces was beneficial way down the line. Secondly, while you have a point about Cargill, what exactly has Martin and Co done to resolve this situation? Nothing at all. They have higher priorities like legal prostitution, legal pot, national day care, and ssm.
Oil: The assistance I am aware of is from Alberta, where there were some deferrals of tax until production was in place, which allowed the companies to get production in place as soon as possible. The only thing the feds have done was force Alberta to sell oil at less than market price to the rest of Canada during the NEP rape.
Atlantic Accord: I think you should review last years election, Harper intially propsed this deal, saying that a conservative government would give the atlantic provinces the same deal as Alberta. Martin had to copy this, but only implemented it when Danny Williams forced him to. Harper has already said that he would not rip up this deal.
Constituation: Your response just confirms what I have been trying to say about who funds this country. Basically, your response indicates that Ontario and Alberta not only fund their costs, but also the rest of Canada. This indicates severe flaws in how this country operates.
Harper: There is no bigotry in the conservative platform (I assume you are talking SSM). The rights of same sex unions are the same as those granted under a traditional marriage. The only difference is the word. Rights are equal under both the union and the marriage, so this is, by definition, not an equality or rights issue. Semantics possibly, but only that.
Health Care: Read the Canadians to US thread for a post from I Think Not. Excellent information from someone operating within the system and based on facts.
Rev, this thread is very interesting, and although we have our different viewpoints, open discussion is good. I would like to hear from others, though. What do the rest of you say about any or all of these issues?
Okay, here we go:
Private Clinics in Quebec: so operating totally outside the system is okay, but trying to do the same thing within the system is wrong? Are you saying that Alberta should ignore the Canada Health Act and do what Quebec has done and simply allow private clinics?
Mad Cow: First of all, don't think that all the money went to Alberta, the assistance went to all cattle producers across the country. Alberta also provided assistance to it's ranchers as well. In addition, this goes way beyond just farmers, with truckers, truck dealerships, grain and feed producers and sellers, so this assistance from both the feds and provinces was beneficial way down the line. Secondly, while you have a point about Cargill, what exactly has Martin and Co done to resolve this situation? Nothing at all. They have higher priorities like legal prostitution, legal pot, national day care, and ssm.
Oil: The assistance I am aware of is from Alberta, where there were some deferrals of tax until production was in place, which allowed the companies to get production in place as soon as possible. The only thing the feds have done was force Alberta to sell oil at less than market price to the rest of Canada during the NEP rape.
Atlantic Accord: I think you should review last years election, Harper intially propsed this deal, saying that a conservative government would give the atlantic provinces the same deal as Alberta. Martin had to copy this, but only implemented it when Danny Williams forced him to. Harper has already said that he would not rip up this deal.
Constituation: Your response just confirms what I have been trying to say about who funds this country. Basically, your response indicates that Ontario and Alberta not only fund their costs, but also the rest of Canada. This indicates severe flaws in how this country operates.
Harper: There is no bigotry in the conservative platform (I assume you are talking SSM). The rights of same sex unions are the same as those granted under a traditional marriage. The only difference is the word. Rights are equal under both the union and the marriage, so this is, by definition, not an equality or rights issue. Semantics possibly, but only that.
Health Care: Read the Canadians to US thread for a post from I Think Not. Excellent information from someone operating within the system and based on facts.
Rev, this thread is very interesting, and although we have our different viewpoints, open discussion is good. I would like to hear from others, though. What do the rest of you say about any or all of these issues?
No, I said very clearly that I would shut the down. They are arguably legal under the Canada Health Act though.
Quebec didn't ignore the Canada Health Act. Under the act if a doctor is acting completely outside of the government system they are allowed to.
I never said that it did.
So did every other province. The deal was for matching funds.
They can't do anything now. Your boys shut it down to get more campaign contributions.
Are governments only allowed to address one issue at a time? If it isn't an issue you like, does that make it less valid?
The federal government worked with Alberta on the Tar Sands and to get the Oil Sands going. They are still granting you all kinds of money and favours with the Mackenzie Delta thing, although that's shut down for the moment, which will take relatively clean natural gas and burn it up to produce dirty oil. The Canadian government subsidizes the oil and coal industries to the tune of at least 1.2 billion a year.
So how are you going to get them back to the table? How are you going to deal with Manitoba and Quebec demanding the same deal for our nice, clean electricity? Are you going to give Saskatchewan the same deal too? What's in that for the provinces that need to buy oil?
Except that you are ignoring that Saskatchewan, under the careful tutelage of the NDP, is now a have province. Manitoba will be shortly after the east-west grid comes into play. Quebec is well on its way for the same reason. See how that works? Things are evening out. It also shows some of the economic benefits of Kyoto, but we don't want to get into that here.
It's still bigotry. Deny it all you want, but words are important. What if we decided that interracial marriages could only be officially referred to as interracial unions? That's the argument that you are making, and it is just as bigotted and invalid.
I have been reading it. I know an awful lot of people, in Canada and in the US, that would dispute those facts.
I also dispute your version of the waiting time problem in Canada. My experiences and the experiences of people I know have been very different than what you describe. That is especially true in the case of emergencies or severe discomfort.
More than that, we have the Romanow Report which would solve most of our current problems and our healthcare would still be much less per capita than in the US.
Although Martin hasn't had the political courage to institute the Romanow Report, he has moved forward to address some of the most severe problems and you know what? Most reports indicate that things are getting better.
bluealberta said:
As I understand it, the Atlantic Accord was written, along with several other bills, including Kyoto, into the budget...
http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=4549
If the BQ and Cons vote the budget down, the Atlantic Accord will be scrapped, and Stevie should not be looking to the east for votes in that event...
Harper developed his numbers with the help of independant economists. They consistently showed that the Liberals were low-balling the surplus. Martin and the national press hit him hard for this. It's funny, then, how after the election a lot of 'new' money was found, and a lot of new promises made. Look at the total spending under this Liberal plan and it adds up to... you guessed it! - the very numbers that the Conservatives had campaigned on. :!:
RE: How will a Conservati
That was my point when I brought it up, Vanni. The funny thing is that if Stevie wouldn't have read those polls he could have gotten the budget he liked fast-tracked and the Atlantic Accord would be in place very quickly.
Now it's going to die on the order table. With an election and summer coming, then the x-mas break, it will be at least this time next year before it takes effect. Maybe longer.
That was my point when I brought it up, Vanni. The funny thing is that if Stevie wouldn't have read those polls he could have gotten the budget he liked fast-tracked and the Atlantic Accord would be in place very quickly.
Now it's going to die on the order table. With an election and summer coming, then the x-mas break, it will be at least this time next year before it takes effect. Maybe longer.
MMMike said:
Absolutely true, MMMike. Just another example of Martin saying one thing, then doing another. A year ago he was saying that there was not enough money for the Conservative platform, and now, even after increasing his projections, he magically finds another $4.6 billion for Prime Minister Layton. Or was that only after the fiscal year was over and there was enough money left for Smilin' Jack...oh yeah, even if we wait until the Gomery report, there will probably be another election before the fiscal year end for the government, so maybe that money will not be there...it is so hard to keep up with the continuous flip flops by Paul Dithers.
Re: RE: How will a Conservati
Did you hear or read about Harpers speech yesterday? He committed to honoring all agreements signed by the present government, including the child care $$ you folks in Manitoba just got, and including the Atlantic Accord, which was Harper's idea in the first place. He also said that he would not violate the Canada Health Act, and dismissed the Harris/Manning report. Gotta love that scarey hidden agenda stuff........., although I can see why you liberal and ndp supporters would have such a hard time thinking a politician could actually keep their word, given your leaders.
Reverend Blair said:
Did you hear or read about Harpers speech yesterday? He committed to honoring all agreements signed by the present government, including the child care $$ you folks in Manitoba just got, and including the Atlantic Accord, which was Harper's idea in the first place. He also said that he would not violate the Canada Health Act, and dismissed the Harris/Manning report. Gotta love that scarey hidden agenda stuff........., although I can see why you liberal and ndp supporters would have such a hard time thinking a politician could actually keep their word, given your leaders.
Re: RE: How will a Conservati
Of course he is saying that, he has to change his tune cause his whole platform of Gomery is not working, he slipping back down. He doesn't stand a chance. Sorry to say Alberta, but your 28 seats doesn't cut it and Harper will lose if he forces an election.
bluealberta said:
Of course he is saying that, he has to change his tune cause his whole platform of Gomery is not working, he slipping back down. He doesn't stand a chance. Sorry to say Alberta, but your 28 seats doesn't cut it and Harper will lose if he forces an election.
Since we seem to have devolved back into rhetoric and name calling, I guess Harper will be known aas Harpie from now and his party will be known as the Regressive Convertibles. All references to right-wing organisations will start with "the PFGHs at the..."
Either that or you can refer to people and parties by their real names.
And you accuse Martin of flip-flopping? Harper is just as bad. All he stands for is getting elected. Perhaps he's realized that if he does get elected it will be in a minority government and he will have even less influence than he has right now.
The one he gave to the PFGH's at the Fraser Institute? They didn't believe him either or they would't have applauded all of his flip-flops.
I really do. It's so much easier to point out that Harpie is a transparent liar and the Regressive Convertibles that he leads have no sense of decency whatsoever. They are just like the Liberals.
Either that or you can refer to people and parties by their real names.
And you accuse Martin of flip-flopping? Harper is just as bad. All he stands for is getting elected. Perhaps he's realized that if he does get elected it will be in a minority government and he will have even less influence than he has right now.
The one he gave to the PFGH's at the Fraser Institute? They didn't believe him either or they would't have applauded all of his flip-flops.
I really do. It's so much easier to point out that Harpie is a transparent liar and the Regressive Convertibles that he leads have no sense of decency whatsoever. They are just like the Liberals.
Rev, you can call Harper anything you want. I have figured it out that no matter what he said, you would not like it. From your point of view, if the Fraser Institute did not like what he said, you should have loved it. Basically, he answered all the complaints you had against him about not carrying on with the programs already approved and in place. As far as name calling, well, if calling Martin Mr. Dithers offends you, you must be offended daily by the news media, and calling Layton the Prime Minister was a bit of humor. Guess there is no humor in Winnipeg.
RE: How will a Conservati
I have little humour left with those who substitute cheap shots for rational discussion of policy, Blue. I've heard enough lies and crap from the Conservatives and the Liberals for one lifetime, thanks.
I have little humour left with those who substitute cheap shots for rational discussion of policy, Blue. I've heard enough lies and crap from the Conservatives and the Liberals for one lifetime, thanks.
Rev, I suspect we would agree on at least the Liberal part of your statement. The trouble with the Federal NDP is that they can say what they want, they will never be elected as the government in this country, so just as you think the conservatives don't tell the truth, from my side of the fence, neither do the NDP. And as far as cheap shots, you dish out your share to not only me, so your comment about cheap shots replacing discussion reflects some of your posts as well. It is obvious that we will never agree on much of anything political, so if you think a Liberal government will be better than a Conservative government, given that is the only two real options, then so be it. With respect, I strongly disagree with you, but you will not change me, I will not change you, and no matter what Harper says, he will never please you and no matter what Martin says he will never please me. I will say though that I think I have come much closer to the center of the political spectrum than you have, as I have changed my opinions somewhat on some of the social issues of the day, while I see as firmly barricaded behind the leftist wall. So, c'est la vie, let's just agree to disagree about this, and move on. I will keep an eye on you, though!!!
Canadians Suspicious of Tory Hidden Agenda
Thankfully, it looks like there's a lot more lefties out there than neocons... 8)
Thankfully, it looks like there's a lot more lefties out there than neocons... 8)
Vanni Fucci said:
.........or more willing to blindly believe anything the media and liberals say. Where is the agenda?
RE: How will a Conservati
What opinions have you changed Blue? You're against SSM, against Kyoto, deny the science behind climate changem against increased money for education, against child care.
What are you for? Tax cuts and pollution? Oh and a strong military so our military can serve as cannon fodder for US imperialist adventures.
Have you addressed the fact that Harper has been flip-flopping like encephalatic bunny? Hve you addressed the fact that his backers are against women having control of their own bodies? Have you even considered the fact that he has no foreign policy beyond doing whatever the GOP tells him to?
So what have you changed your mind on? You haven't even smartened up enough to realize that being anti-Bush isn't being anti-American. You lack the political sophistication comprehend that the NDP is very different party than Paul Martin's Liberals...something that is painfully obvious to even a casual news watcher.
In the end, just like all the other conservatives since the Mulroney/Thatcher/Reagan Mulroney triumvirate of the eighties, you have no facts to argue. All you can do is scream about scandal and tax cuts.
In the end the neo-conservative creedo is less valid than that of the anarchists. At least anarchists recognize the need for people to look after one another. All the conservatives want to do is rob the weakest members of our society. It's the same mentality as that of the miscreant yuppie freaks who set homeless people on fire just because they can.
What opinions have you changed Blue? You're against SSM, against Kyoto, deny the science behind climate changem against increased money for education, against child care.
What are you for? Tax cuts and pollution? Oh and a strong military so our military can serve as cannon fodder for US imperialist adventures.
Have you addressed the fact that Harper has been flip-flopping like encephalatic bunny? Hve you addressed the fact that his backers are against women having control of their own bodies? Have you even considered the fact that he has no foreign policy beyond doing whatever the GOP tells him to?
So what have you changed your mind on? You haven't even smartened up enough to realize that being anti-Bush isn't being anti-American. You lack the political sophistication comprehend that the NDP is very different party than Paul Martin's Liberals...something that is painfully obvious to even a casual news watcher.
In the end, just like all the other conservatives since the Mulroney/Thatcher/Reagan Mulroney triumvirate of the eighties, you have no facts to argue. All you can do is scream about scandal and tax cuts.
In the end the neo-conservative creedo is less valid than that of the anarchists. At least anarchists recognize the need for people to look after one another. All the conservatives want to do is rob the weakest members of our society. It's the same mentality as that of the miscreant yuppie freaks who set homeless people on fire just because they can.
Vanni Fucci said:
Careful, the rev will get after you for namecalling. There is no hidden agenda, but if you want to believe in such nonsense, go ahead. It's not really paranoia if they're really after you, Vanni!
- Status