Elections

tim1_2 wrote:Easy comrade.  I, for one, welcome our new communist overlords.  

I hope they follow through on the promise of allowing the sale of american blue jeans to continue under their benevolent rule.

You will wear your government-issued work pants and you will damn well like it. Blue jeans (and jeans of all colours for that matter) shall be reserved for our noble, handsome leader.

Ev wrote:Country is Cussed

I don't know if you're being serious.

Listened to his speech and I think he'll be fine. Really does sound like a "nice guy"; it's a shame what's going to happen to him over the next few years. I do wish he'd try to balance the budget first, though. Interest rates will go up eventually and I don't want to spend a third of our taxes on interest for the outstanding debt.

Harper looked relieved.

When you've been the PM as long as Harper has been, and you know it's going to be rocky times ahead, I'd look relieved too.

One wonders if Harper saw the writing on the wall so he didn't care if the things he did in his final administration pissed off a lot of people because he knew he'd lose. Probably didn't anticipate a Liberal majority though.

wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

No kidding, people are lemmings.

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:Country is Cussed

I don't know if you're being serious.

Listened to his speech and I think he'll be fine.  Really does sound like a "nice guy"; it's a shame what's going to happen to him over the next few years.   I do wish he'd try to balance the budget first, though.  Interest rates will go up eventually and I don't want to spend a third of our taxes on interest for the outstanding debt.

Harper looked relieved.

The balanced budget talk is a bit of a red herring. The key is debt to gdp ratio. Harper reduced it to 25% which is the best among G7 countries and 10 billion per year deficits would only require about 1.7% gdp growth to maintain that ratio. If the investment in infrastructure kickstarts some growth the ratio could continue to drop slightly.

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:Country is Cussed

I don't know if you're being serious.

Listened to his speech and I think he'll be fine.  Really does sound like a "nice guy"; it's a shame what's going to happen to him over the next few years.   I do wish he'd try to balance the budget first, though.  Interest rates will go up eventually and I don't want to spend a third of our taxes on interest for the outstanding debt.

Harper looked relieved.

i was semi joking. I don't really care who is the leader. All the same.

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

Turr'sts. And folks what look like turr'sts.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

Turr'sts. And folks what look like turr'sts.

Ah yes the Turr'sts. The united front of Turris fantastics. Love those guys!

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

As a Canadian I'm personally afraid of a world that would see the Leafs win another Stanley Cup.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

Turr'sts. And folks what look like turr'sts.

Ah yes the Turr'sts. The united front of Turris fantastics. Love those guys!

You sure wouldn't want them holding a "rally" on Parliament Hill, though.

Oglethorpe wrote:

wprager wrote:

Ev wrote:Country is Cussed

I don't know if you're being serious.

Listened to his speech and I think he'll be fine.  Really does sound like a "nice guy"; it's a shame what's going to happen to him over the next few years.   I do wish he'd try to balance the budget first, though.  Interest rates will go up eventually and I don't want to spend a third of our taxes on interest for the outstanding debt.

Harper looked relieved.

The balanced budget talk is a bit of a red herring.  The key is debt to gdp ratio.  Harper reduced it to 25% which is the best among G7 countries and 10 billion per year deficits would only require about 1.7% gdp growth to maintain that ratio.  If the investment in infrastructure kickstarts some growth the ratio could continue to drop slightly.  

That 25% is very highly debatable. Some peg it at closer to 80% if you include pension fund shortfalls and provincial debt. Bottom line is they have a huge debt and when interest rates start going up (hopefully not for another year or two, but they will) we will end up paying 25-30 cents of every dollar collected just to pay the interest. And as the baby boomers continue leaving the workforce and joining the ranks of those drawing a pension the tax income will continue slipping while the pension payments will continue rising.

The time is now, while interest rates are low, to start reducing the debt.

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

So why are we sending troops overseas again and have a full month (coming in 10 days) dedicated to the Army that is supposed to keep us "safe"?
If nobody is afraid, then I guess there's nothing to keep us safe from.

LeCaptain wrote:

Ev wrote:wtf are people on about regarding the Conservatives instilling "fear" in Canadians? Who the hell is afraid in Canada? Afraid of what?

So why are we sending troops overseas again and have a full month (coming in 10 days) dedicated to the Army that is supposed to keep us "safe"?
If nobody is afraid, then I guess there's nothing to keep us safe from.

I support the forces so there's no point arguing this.

Sending troops and taking in refugees are two sides of the same coin -- you cannot argue for one while arguing against the other.  Either we get involved or we stay out.

wprager wrote:Sending troops and taking in refugees are two sides of the same coin -- you cannot argue for one while arguing against the other.  Either we get involved or we stay out.

Of course you can. That's just silly. That's like saying that women's shelter employees are required to go and beat up abusive boyfriends. Cause they're involved by helping provide shelter, therefore they must be involved in a militaristic way.