Liberals committed to never-ending deficits, debt

[Hoid]

In that one case I actually agree somewhat. He should have let the Liberals throw him out, because there is a chance the G-G would have ordered a new election (in which Harper would have probably won a majority), and even if she had allowed the borderline treasonous Liberals a chance to form gov't, it would have been the last time in a generation.

Otherwise, Harper was quite bold with his policies.

What good is a majority when you don't really have a plan and are just going to keep borrowing money?

$150 billion in debt doesn't just happen.

NO good to run up this massive debt and then when you're about to get shit canned to create a small surplus and say "look at me! What a great leader I am."

Leadership is about results and the result from Harper was $150 billion in debt.

 

[JLM]

What good is a majority when you don't really have a plan and are just going to keep borrowing money?

It's a Catch 22 situation - what some lunkheads don't seem to realize is the politicians' main incentive is to remain elected and the electorate's main demands are more programs and services and less tax. You can't have it both ways!

 

[Cannuck]

...Most...

... all...

Hehehe...

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Yep. Strawman. He can't refute your argument, so he makes up one he can refute, then attributes it to you.

 

[Angstrom]

People will support a government based on ideology. Hold is a Communist @ hart so he will support a Socialist Communiste Party. Most of us here are not.

 

[JLM]

Yep. Strawman. He can't refute your argument, so he makes up one he can refute, then attributes it to you.

Do you agree that Harper was a coward?

 

[Cannuck]

Do you agree that Harper was a coward?

Are you now trying to deflect attention away from your dubious debate tactic?

 

[Angstrom]

Its pointless to have a argument against someone outside you’re own ideology. Because ideological beliefs changes you’re whole view of the world based on its principles

 

[Cannuck]

Its pointless to have a argument against someone outside you’re own ideology. Because ideological beliefs changes you’re whole view of the world based on its principles

No, you just start the argument with some core basic beliefs.

For example, I believe the interests of the individual should trump the interests of the collective unless there is significant harm to the collective to do so. All my arguments stem from that position. You really can't refute much of what I say unless you disagree with my original premise.

 

[MHz]

Pick a country or pick all countries and show how many are paying down their debt. Try and calculate the interest the banks are getting on that and how much it has increased in just the 10 years it covers, 2008-2018

International Debt Statistics | The World Bank

 

[Angstrom]

No, you just start the argument with some core basic beliefs.

For example, I believe the interests of the individual should trump the interests of the collective unless there is significant harm to the collective to do so. All my arguments stem from that position. You really can't refute much of what I say unless you disagree with my original premise.

Exactly

You’re a communist

 

[MHz]

You better get a very clear definition of who is who in his statement. At the moment the slant is that the wants of 800,000 outweigh the wants of the remaining 39M.

 

[Angstrom]

You better get a very clear definition of who is who in his statement. At the moment the slant is that the wants of 800,000 outweigh the wants of the remaining 39M.

You’re also a communist.

 

[Cannuck]

T

Exactly

You’re a communist

I'm the opposite but that's beside the point. At issue is the premise that individual interests trump collective interests.

 

[JLM]

T

I'm the opposite but that's beside the point. At issue is the premise that individual interests trump collective interests.

And W.T.F. in his/her right mind would support that premise? And if so why are elections won by the most votes?

 

[Angstrom]

T

I'm the opposite but that's beside the point. At issue is the premise that individual interests trump collective interests.

Closet communist.

 

[Cliffy]

Conservatives seem to have a very short attention span. Liberals usually end up cleaning up conservative economic messes so the next conservative government can leave another deficit. But don't let facts get in the way of your little hate fest. Some day you clowns will wake up to the fact that the same oligarchy own both parties and call all the shots but I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Angstrom]

Conservatives seem to have a very short attention span. Liberals usually end up cleaning up conservative economic messes so the next conservative government can leave another deficit. But don't let facts get in the way of your little hate fest. Some day you clowns will wake up to the fact that the same oligarchy own both parties and call all the shots but I won't be holding my breath.

We know that. That’s why we vote to pay less taxes

 

[Cannuck]

And W.T.F. in his/her right mind would support that premise?

People that aren't socialists like you

 

[JLM]

People that aren't socialists like you

You're delusional, I haven't voted Socialist in 20 years. Did you get the hint earlier that you should quit trying to categorize people? You're a failure at it. Go back to recycling.