|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
1) militarily (sp?) aggressive
|
Do you have some real concerns or is this just a vague fear of 'militarily aggressive' bogeymen?
What, are we going to war with Denmark over Hans Island sometime soon?
Perhaps we could lease out the Costa Rican army and let them take care of our security and sovereignty concerns for us?
We already put ill-equiped soldiers into harm's way- do you have a problem with giving them the correct tools to do the tasks they've already been assigned?
Listen, whether it was a Liberal or a Conservative government, you were going to see increased spending on the military. The difference is that the Liberals wanted you to think the Conservatives doing the same things they would have gotten around to doing was somehow scary.
Or were you worried about the Liberal ads that had Conservatives 'putting soldiers in the streets' of every major city in Canada?
They withdrew that one, and anyway the 2 times the army was in the streets of a major Canadian city it was at the behest of the Liberals- during the Ice Strom and during the FLQ crisis.
But there is actually one 'militarily aggressive' concern I have with the Conservatives, which I feel is a valid concern- can you name it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big Mac
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
Congrats to Canada!
may the US regain its traditional designated driver..........
who must, of course, be prepared to DRIVE>>>>>>>>> |
I wouldn't expect Stephen Harper to go kissing up to the Americans any time soon. I think the Conservatives know that it is politically risky in Canada to appear too friendly with the United States.
The Conservatives are in a minority position right now in the House. They need to play it very safe between now and the next election if they want to win a majority the next time around. Getting too friendly with the Americans might alienate a lot of Liberal voters (who tend to be less American-friendly) who are eyeing the Conservatives right now and thinking of giving them a majority next election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
1) militarily (sp?) aggressive
|
Do you have some real concerns or is this just a vague fear of 'militarily aggressive' bogeymen?
What, are we going to war with Denmark over Hans Island sometime soon?
Perhaps we could lease out the Costa Rican army and let them take care of our security and sovereignty concerns for us?
We already put ill-equiped soldiers into harm's way- do you have a problem with giving them the correct tools to do the tasks they've already been assigned?
Listen, whether it was a Liberal or a Conservative government, you were going to see increased spending on the military. The difference is that the Liberals wanted you to think the Conservatives doing the same things they would have gotten around to doing was somehow scary.
Or were you worried about the Liberal ads that had Conservatives 'putting soldiers in the streets' of every major city in Canada?
They withdrew that one, and anyway the 2 times the army was in the streets of a major Canadian city it was at the behest of the Liberals- during the Ice Strom and during the FLQ crisis. |
Ummm, he would have joined the Iraq war ...
| Quote: |
But there is actually one 'militarily aggressive' concern I have with the Conservatives, which I feel is a valid concern- can you name it? |
Yes, there is only one and I should know it because you obviously feel it is the only valid one. Shall I bow down now or later? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Mac
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
Must be nice to be moving from this:
to this:
 |
From what I've heard, nobody seems to get too excited about moving into 24 Sussex Drive. Apparently it's a real fixer-upper right now. Nobody wants to fix up the place, in case they're criticized in the media for spending too much. I've heard that Paul Martin used to set up space heaters in the living room because the place was so drafty....the windows are ancient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
1) militarily (sp?) aggressive
|
Do you have some real concerns or is this just a vague fear of 'militarily aggressive' bogeymen?
What, are we going to war with Denmark over Hans Island sometime soon?
Perhaps we could lease out the Costa Rican army and let them take care of our security and sovereignty concerns for us?
We already put ill-equiped soldiers into harm's way- do you have a problem with giving them the correct tools to do the tasks they've already been assigned?
Listen, whether it was a Liberal or a Conservative government, you were going to see increased spending on the military. The difference is that the Liberals wanted you to think the Conservatives doing the same things they would have gotten around to doing was somehow scary.
Or were you worried about the Liberal ads that had Conservatives 'putting soldiers in the streets' of every major city in Canada?
They withdrew that one, and anyway the 2 times the army was in the streets of a major Canadian city it was at the behest of the Liberals- during the Ice Strom and during the FLQ crisis. |
Ummm, he would have joined the Iraq war ...
EDIT: oh and go along with the missle defense shield.
| Quote: |
But there is actually one 'militarily aggressive' concern I have with the Conservatives, which I feel is a valid concern- can you name it? |
Yes, there is only one and I should know it because you obviously feel it is the only valid one. Shall I bow down now or later? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Why do I feel that for the first time, the voice of the west will be heard in Federal politics, and that the Liberals on this board are scared? |
I'm not scared, and if things even out with Quebec and Ontario, fine. And if things are really so bad, why not just break away? What I am afraid of is Canada becoming...
1) militarily (sp?) aggressive
2) Christian governed (abortion and gay marriage, and who knows what else)
3) losing our health care
But luckily it's a minority, so we'll sed how Harper turns out. |
(numbers are YOURS)
1. "militarily aggressive" With what and with who? Our equipment (think Sea Kings) needs to be replaced and modernized. That will eat up most of the budget. We'll send a few more soldiers to Afghanistan and that will take care of the rest. We are not going to get involved in Iraq. A minority government would never be able to push that through.
2. Harper called for a free vote on gay marriage. Do you have a problem with democracy? Harper has also said he will NOT use the notwithstanding clause. Nor will Harper repeal abortion. Look at the States. The Republicans have/ had a majority in both houses and led by a openly Christian president and they STILL haven't repealed it. And you think a minority government in Canada is going to be able to?
3. Health care is not going to disappear. One of the fastest way for a Canadian politician to lose power is to look as if he doesn't care about health care. The opposition would unite and take Harper down if he even so much as looks at health care the wrong way.
Bottom line: For Harper to remain in power, he is going to have to come to an agreement with the opposition and hammer out some working plans. I think he's learned a lesson from what happened to Martin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Why do I feel that for the first time, the voice of the west will be heard in Federal politics, and that the Liberals on this board are scared? |
I'm not scared, and if things even out with Quebec and Ontario, fine. And if things are really so bad, why not just break away? What I am afraid of is Canada becoming...
1) militarily (sp?) aggressive
2) Christian governed (abortion and gay marriage, and who knows what else)
3) losing our health care
But luckily it's a minority, so we'll sed how Harper turns out. |
(numbers are YOURS)
1. "militarily aggressive" With what and with who? Our equipment (think Sea Kings) needs to be replaced and modernized. That will eat up most of the budget. We'll send a few more soldiers to Afghanistan and that will take care of the rest. We are not going to get involved in Iraq. A minority government would never be able to push that through.
|
missle shield? Right now all Bush wants is moral support, but where does it go from there?
| Quote: |
2. Harper called for a free vote on gay marriage. Do you have a problem with democracy? Harper has also said he will NOT use the notwithstanding clause. Nor will Harper repeal abortion. Look at the States. The Republicans have/ had a majority in both houses and led by a openly Christian president and they STILL haven't repealed it. And you think a minority government in Canada is going to be able to?
|
Good thing it wasn't up to a free vote if women should be allowed to vote. And luckily in America that vote wasn't put up for allowing black people to actually go to a white school (and various other racial issues).
| Quote: |
3. Health care is not going to disappear. One of the fastest way for a Canadian politician to lose power is to look as if he doesn't care about health care. The opposition would unite and take Harper down if he even so much as looks at health care the wrong way.
|
He will slowly start to privatise it and we start down the slippery slope
| Quote: |
Bottom line: For Harper to remain in power, he is going to have to come to an agreement with the opposition and hammer out some working plans. I think he's learned a lesson from what happened to Martin. |
We'll see. He will start small, but just remember, universal health care was pushed through with a minority government too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
[
1. "militarily aggressive" With what and with who? Our equipment (think Sea Kings) needs to be replaced and modernized. That will eat up most of the budget. We'll send a few more soldiers to Afghanistan and that will take care of the rest. We are not going to get involved in Iraq. A minority government would never be able to push that through.
|
(A) missle shield? Right now all Bush wants is moral support, but where does it go from there?
| Quote: |
2. Harper called for a free vote on gay marriage. Do you have a problem with democracy? Harper has also said he will NOT use the notwithstanding clause. Nor will Harper repeal abortion. Look at the States. The Republicans have/ had a majority in both houses and led by a openly Christian president and they STILL haven't repealed it. And you think a minority government in Canada is going to be able to?
|
(B) Good thing it wasn't up to a free vote if women should be allowed to vote. And luckily in America that vote wasn't put up for allowing black people to actually go to a white school (and various other racial issues).
| Quote: |
3. Health care is not going to disappear. One of the fastest way for a Canadian politician to lose power is to look as if he doesn't care about health care. The opposition would unite and take Harper down if he even so much as looks at health care the wrong way.
|
(C)He will slowly start to privatise it and we start down the slippery slope
| Quote: |
Bottom line: For Harper to remain in power, he is going to have to come to an agreement with the opposition and hammer out some working plans. I think he's learned a lesson from what happened to Martin. |
(D) We'll see. He will start small, but just remember, universal health care was pushed through with a minority government too. |
(Letters are mine)
A. Nowhere else. He doesn't have the support to push through anything. Plus his spending plans and tax cutting plans will keep him from offering any considerable finanical support (even if he wanted to)
B. Which has NOTHING to do with Harper's policies or to do with the here and now.
C. Says who? Not Harper. And even if he tried to, his government would surely be bought down by an united opposition. No Canadian politician will touch health care (apart from throwing more money at it) It is the proverbial "third rail" of Canadian politics.
D. It was pushed through with opposition support. Not likely to happen at all in this political atmosphere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Why do I feel that for the first time, the voice of the west will be heard in Federal politics, and that the Liberals on this board are scared? |
I'm not scared, and if things even out with Quebec and Ontario, fine. And if things are really so bad, why not just break away? What I am afraid of is Canada becoming...
1) militarily (sp?) aggressive
2) Christian governed (abortion and gay marriage, and who knows what else)
3) losing our health care
But luckily it's a minority, so we'll sed how Harper turns out. |
Re: Christian governed. Here's a quote on Harper's views on the matter:
| Quote: |
By 2001, Harper was off the sidelines and back in the game. When Reform became the Canadian Alliance and Stockwell Day imploded as leader during the 2000 election campaign, Harper started thinking about party politics again.
What followed was a hard-fought campaign during which his volunteers managed to stave off an influx of new party members the Day team recruited from conservative church congregations, a development that Harper deplored in one interview. "My view is that the purpose of a Christian church is to promote the message and the life of Christ. It is not to promote a particular political party or candidacy. I don't think this is good religion, besides being bad politics at the same time." In the end, he defeated Day to take the Alliance's top job in 2002. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
missle shield? Right now all Bush wants is moral support, but where does it go from there?
|
Sorry I doubted you; The way you had worded your orignal concern I had assumed you didn't know what you were talking about.
This is the one I'm worried about too.
I think the general fear of Harper with regard to security issues is that he would make decisions not based on best practices/best interests but on what would curry the most favour with the Bush admin. But this is a fear that has yet to be proven.
And yes he was for going into Iraq, but I'd be willing to bet that had the roles been reversed Chretien would have been calling a Conservative government to task for not supporting traditional allies. You can expect the official opposition to take a contrary opinion on any given issue- it's what they do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Mac wrote: |
From what I've heard, nobody seems to get too excited about moving into 24 Sussex Drive. Apparently it's a real fixer-upper right now. Nobody wants to fix up the place, in case they're criticized in the media for spending too much. I've heard that Paul Martin used to set up space heaters in the living room because the place was so drafty....the windows are ancient. |
And that corner of Sussex is accident central in the winter and traffic jam central when the footguards are out (but of course when you are PM you are immune to these concerns). I drive this route almost every day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
