How will a Conservative government be better?

[bluealberta]

I know I posted this on another thread, so I apologise for that, but thought that maybe we could get back to what this thread was originally about. In my opinion, this is how a Conservative Government will be better:

I am opposed as much to radical right wingers as I am opposed to radical left wingers. I am a centrist, but on the right side of center.

I do not want to abolish abortion, but also don't want it to be used as form of continuing birth control.

I do not support the gun registry. The money that was spent on that program could have put tens of thousands of actual police officers on the street.

I will not support Kyoto until there is no argument about the benefits of it.

I do not support national daycare as it is a costly program that is not needed. There are numerous subsidy programs in daycare now.

I support social programs that are responsible. By that I will use the Child Tax Credit (CTC) as one example. I think that this money should go to lower income people, not be universal. Don't reduce the fund, just provide it to the people who really need it.

I don't want to put gays in jail, and am not opposed to SS unions, but I do want to maintain the tradional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

I do support increasing military spending, as I don't think a country can be called fully sovereign unless they can at least start to defend themselves.

I support the Canada Health Act, but if we accept the premise that there are some large problems with our health care system, then I support the idea of looking at all alternatives from many countries, including the use of private facilities, to improve the system. I do not want to turn anyone away based on income levels.

I do not want to legalize pot, nor do I want to legalize prostitution. It is my belief that pot use can and does in many cases, lead to more drug use, and prostitution has many detrimental affects on society.

I think we should try to be friendly with our largest neighbor and trading partner for obvious fiscal and trade reasons. We are too small to be isolationist.

I think the current goverment should be thrown out of office due to the scandal and criminal activities that have been discovered. If the current prime minister did not know about this when he was the finance minister, then he is incompetent and should not be allowed to run this country. If he knew about it, same thing.

In my opinion, these are things the Conservative party represents, which I don't think is way out on the right side of the universe. It is right of center, just as the Liberals are left of center, but not way out on the left side of the Universe, like the NDP is. ]

Maybe we can get this thread back on track?

 

[Numure]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

It is exactly the same thing, Blue. When people were trying to make interracial marriages illegal, they used the exact same argument. They claimed that they weren't being bigoted, just protecting their traditions.

Your traditions have been found to be unconstitutional by courts in 8 (soon to be 9) jurisdictions in Canada. You might as well get used to the fact that SSM is now a part of life in Canada.

Sorry, Rev, cannot agree. Different sexual orientations are not the same as different races. The courts have also not said it was unconsitutional, but they did say the government MAY include SS in marriage, not that they HAVE to. According to the polls, most Canadians seem to have the same viewpoint I have, and wish to protect the definition of tradional marriage, without denying rights or benefits. So, to say it is a done deal may be a bit premature at this point.

What poll? In Québec, everyone supports SSM. The ones that don't, are few.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

What poll? In Québec, everyone supports SSM. The ones that don't, are few.[/quote]

Everyone is a bit of a stretch, but I will grant you Quebec is in favor more than the rest of the country. The most recent poll I saw said that two thirds more Canadians supported the tradional definition of marriage than did not. This same poll did say that the majority did not oppose SS unions, though. I support SS unions, but still support the traditional definition of marriage.

 

[SirKevin]

I do not want to abolish abortion, but also don't want it to be used as form of continuing birth control.

There has to be reform to the entire process.

I do not support the gun registry. The money that was spent on that program could have put tens of thousands of actual police officers on the street.

It's funny because the police officers on the streets now consult the registry over half a million times a year -- I wonder how many crimes that has led to being solved and thus how many more crimes prevented...

I do not support national daycare as it is a costly program that is not needed. There are numerous subsidy programs in daycare now.

There are certainly overall benefits to a national daycare program. If you expect a lot of people that would be using a national program to get off their asses and figure out how to work the subsidies to their advantage, then you must have a lot more faith in people than I do.

I don't want to put gays in jail, and am not opposed to SS unions, but I do want to maintain the tradional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Why? Why do we need to maintain the traditional definition? (and which traditional defintion are we referring to? There has been a ton of change to the definition of marriage over time) What will happen if we do change the definition of marriage to two people regardless of sex?

I support the Canada Health Act, but if we accept the premise that there are some large problems with our health care system, then I support the idea of looking at all alternatives from many countries, including the use of private facilities, to improve the system. I do not want to turn anyone away based on income levels.

Careful there; priviatizing health care is a slippery slope. As Rev as pointed out three are some terms of NAFTA that make it a dangerous venture and otherwise, it's just a generally a very slippery slope.

I It is my belief that pot use can and does in many cases, lead to more drug use,

Common sense and real life dictate that legalized pot leads to lesser use of heavier drugs.

Consider a few things from the common sense standpoint.

Right now, the three main substances that teenagers use are pot, cigarettes and alcohol. Far and away pot is the safest of the three (though still not "safe", I do concede). If someone underage to dtink and smoke has the option of taking legal pot or finding illegal booze/cigs, which will they take?

As for real life, I do believe that in most places with legalized pot heroin/cocaine use has gone down. Amsterdam I am sure I have seen stats on, I will try to source that later.

My problem with the gateway theory is this. I have never really thought that it is a need for a stronger high that leads people to E, crack, and so forth. I honestly believe it is largely exposure to drug culture. If you need to go to a shady dealer in a back alley to get your pot, of course there will be tons of opportunities for you to get involved with coke, crack, chemical pills and so forth. However if you get your pot from a government pot cafe or whatever it eliminates the exposure to drug culture.

On top of that -- legal or illegal, pot ain't going away. Anyone who would buy it from the gov't if it were legalized already gets it from underground sources. Again, might as well reduce some of that underground acitivity and make some money from the pot tax. Imagine how many police officers we could put on the street if we taxed the revenue from pot! :wink:

As for prostitution, I fully recognize it is a very tough issue. Myt problem is that again if it were legal, the risk of someone getting a disease from a prostitute would go down so much because it would be done in government sanctioned areas and everyone involved would be tested.

As for it being detrimental to society, again...if it is legal it will be largely the same crowd; just less risk of STDs and so forth.

I think the current goverment should be thrown out of office due to the scandal and criminal activities that have been discovered. If the current prime minister did not know about this when he was the finance minister, then he is incompetent and should not be allowed to run this country. If he knew about it, same thing.

Heh. I was debating as staunch Liberal supporter (actually a guy very involved with their riding assoc.) and we were actually trying to establish that there had been money misused in the first place! Jesus Christ, this guy needed Gomery's final report to know that there was money misused even though his boy Paul admits as much!!

 

[Vanni Fucci]

No hidden agenda, you say?

All comments can be directed to Vanni@Conservatives-suck-ass.ca.

Thank you, and have a nice day... 8)

 

[bluealberta]

No hidden agenda, you say?

All comments can be directed to Vanni@Conservatives-suck-ass.ca.

Thank you, and have a nice day... 8)

Cute. Not very informative, but cute nonetheless. There is no hidden agenda, but if you want to keep believing, go ahead. As I said before, it's not really paranoia if they're really after ya!

 

[bluealberta]

To Sir Kevin:

Thanks for your comments, they were interesting. Just a couple of things, first of all the pot issue, if the pot were the same as it was when I was a kid, I would feel different. However, knowing some police involved in drug duty, they tell me that pot today is laced with other stuff like meth which makes it more addictive and more dangerous, which increases the possibility of it being a gateway drug. I have to take these guys words for this, they are in the business.

Daycare. This is an issue I know a lot about, my wife runs a home daycare. We were talking about this last night. My wife takes care of six kids per day, and it works out to $12 per hour for her. Point is she works a lot of hours per day, and is classed as self employed. This is the figure the Rev complained about when he said he knew university people in daycare making $12 hour. Present subsidies are based on family income, and are on a sliding scale, but on average, for most subsidized parents, they will pay less than one-third of the total monthly cost. There are parents whose fees are $350 - $400 per month who pay less than $100 out of their pocket. The rest is a form of subisdy, which comes from, you guessed it, the taxpayer. No problem with this, it has been like this for a lot of years. Now take the same scenario, but due to increased wages to the daycare workers under the national government run, unionized program, let's say the cost of the program increases the cost per kid by $100 per month, and let's say that the parents still need a subsidy that keeps their portion under $100. Somebody has to pick up the cost of the additional subsidy, which will again come from the taxpayer. The whole idea of this program is supposedly to provide a cheap form of daycare, but somebody has to pay for it at some point in time, and if it is the government, that means you and I. Muiltipy that by the thousands of kids in daycare, and you get my point about this being an expensive program that only replaces one that is out there now and works. This is the basis why I say that this program is not required.

Again, thanks for your reasoned responses, and while I may not agree with some of them, at least you present your arguments in a reasoned and respectful manner. The Health Care issue is one we will probably never come to an agreement on, though!

 

[Vanni Fucci]

However, knowing some police involved in drug duty, they tell me that pot today is laced with other stuff like meth which makes it more addictive and more dangerous....

Yes, because we all know that the sale of marijuana that is controlled by the government will be laced with all sorts of deadly chemicals...

What a maroon...

 

[LadyC]

And yet cigarettes apparently are laced with all sorts of stuff that wasn't on the label.

You surprise me, Vanni. You don't strike me as one who would put that much faith in the government.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I don't put much faith at all in the government, or much else, for that matter...

...but neither will I assume malfeasance, until it's been proven to be true... :wink:

 

[LadyC]

Oh, pshaw!
We all assume malfeasance. Is there anyone here that isn't cynical when it comes to the government?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?

Oh, pshaw!
We all assume malfeasance. Is there anyone here that isn't cynical when it comes to the government?

Well, I don't, or at least I think I don't...

When I'm given reason to be suspicious, I will be...

Until such time though, everything's all good with me... 8)

 

[bluealberta]

However, knowing some police involved in drug duty, they tell me that pot today is laced with other stuff like meth which makes it more addictive and more dangerous....

Yes, because we all know that the sale of marijuana that is controlled by the government will be laced with all sorts of deadly chemicals...

What a maroon...

Actually, Vanni, the way this government operates, having the government in charge may be a good thing and may actually get rid of drug use. This government cannot do anything cheap or anywhere close to budget projections (see gun registry), so having the government in charge of pot production and distribution will make the stuff so expensive no one will be able to buy it anyway, and viola! no more drug use. And here I have been critical of the government, those clever little devils.......BTW, I used to like Bugs Bunny when I was a kid, too.

 

[I think not]

However, knowing some police involved in drug duty, they tell me that pot today is laced with other stuff like meth which makes it more addictive and more dangerous....

Yes, because we all know that the sale of marijuana that is controlled by the government will be laced with all sorts of deadly chemicals...

What a maroon...

Actually, Vanni, the way this government operates, having the government in charge may be a good thing and may actually get rid of drug use. This government cannot do anything cheap or anywhere close to budget projections (see gun registry), so having the government in charge of pot production and distribution will make the stuff so expensive no one will be able to buy it anyway, and viola! no more drug use. And here I have been critical of the government, those clever little devils.......BTW, I used to like Bugs Bunny when I was a kid, too.

I still like Bugs Bunny

 

[whicker]

bluealberta, I like your post at 3:35pm about policy. Perhaps you should email it to the cons so that they have actual words that they can see and use to flesh out something to stick by.

 

[Numure]

RE: How will a Conservati

Our 7$ a day daycare system in Québec is working wonders.

 

[MMMike]

However, knowing some police involved in drug duty, they tell me that pot today is laced with other stuff like meth which makes it more addictive and more dangerous....

Yes, because we all know that the sale of marijuana that is controlled by the government will be laced with all sorts of deadly chemicals...

What a maroon...

Actually, Vanni, the way this government operates, having the government in charge may be a good thing and may actually get rid of drug use. This government cannot do anything cheap or anywhere close to budget projections (see gun registry), so having the government in charge of pot production and distribution will make the stuff so expensive no one will be able to buy it anyway, and viola! no more drug use. And here I have been critical of the government, those clever little devils.......BTW, I used to like Bugs Bunny when I was a kid, too.

The ideal situation would be pot legalization where the government is not involved in either production, distribution or retail. They can regulate it as they do alcohol and cigarettes. Getting the government involved in even more things is a recipe for disaster.

Besides, why would we want to get rid of drug use? That's use, not abuse!

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Our 7$ a day daycare system in Québec is working wonders.

How would you know? Your provincial auditor general last year criticized the government for not doing anything to measure it's effectiveness! The program is costing $1.4 billion a year and growing, and no one is even checking to see if you are getting value for your money!

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?

bluealberta, I like your post at 3:35pm about policy. Perhaps you should email it to the cons so that they have actual words that they can see and use to flesh out something to stick by.

Hey, thanks. Actually, a lot of these thoughts came from actually listening to Harper and my local MP. I don't know for sure which side of the political spectrum you are on, but what would the average Ontario resident think of these ideas?

 

[bluealberta]

[/quote]I still like Bugs Bunny [/quote]

NOT: I do too, just don't tell anyone, 'kay?