A Question for Conservatives

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I dunno about you but i like the idea of public acceptance of gays and lesbians.

I don't have a problem with gays or lesbians, or public acceptance of them. I just thought that rainbow flags every 2 meters is a bit over the top. It reminded me of the forest of political signs you see on every square inch of highway median and street intersection during election seasons here. It's beyond tasteful recognition and into the realm of tackiness IMHO.

What do you think advertising is?

I hate gap comercials...i hate billboards...it's called freedom of expression.
We have to live around it...what's the big deal.

 

[glenn1]

Marriage no longer has anything to do with church.
A judge can wed these days...you can even modify the vows.
all it is is a piece of paper for the government.

Shows another valid difference in opinions between us. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all, for gays or straights. If you want your church to marry you and they're willing then go for it, be it a gay or straight marriage. I consider it a religious ceremony, not a civil one, and wouldn't want a judge performing one any more than I would want him performing baptisms or bah mitzvahs.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Marriage no longer has anything to do with church.
A judge can wed these days...you can even modify the vows.
all it is is a piece of paper for the government.

Shows another valid difference in opinions between us. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all, for gays or straights. If you want your church to marry you and they're willing then go for it, be it a gay or straight marriage. I consider it a religious ceremony, not a civil one, and wouldn't want a judge performing one any more than I would want him performing baptisms or bah mitzvahs.

i agree 100% that gov't shouldnt be into marriage.
but for some reason they feel the need to recognize straights...but refuse to recognize gays.

Either advocate recognizing gay marriages or advocate the government not recognize straights.
Cant have it both ways...or there's a rights issue.

It was the gov'ts fault for blending church and state. Marriage is no longer a religious term...it can't be...has nothing to do with the church currently...if you can prove this i'd be impressed.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: alchemize
You can't compare the populations of the USA to Canada. Canada is like the USA, but without the problems the US has with a large population of minorities who haven't had the success whites have.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ntdz
Canada doesn't have a space program, a military, etc...

Edit: Oh, and you're wrong about Canada having less debt per GDP than the USA.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publica...ankorder/2186rank.html

Canada: #23 with 77%
USA: #39 with 62.4%
Oh, and France and Germany top the United States as well. Japan is #3.

That debt to GDP ratio is wrong.
I can find endless sources indicating our 40% debt to gdp ratio...by major banks, the canadian government themselves...etc

We do have a space program:
CSA
Nowhere near the level of nasa...but we contribute to missions, have several astronauts who travel with nasa, build some of nasa's equipment and contribute to projects like the ISS and Mars rover mission.

We also have a military. But it is not near as robust as other first world nations with more money. But we have an effective peacekeeping force and have specific equipment where the US and Canada have worked together effectively. There were actually a couple spy and radar planes in iraq before the war. They were feeding information to the US. These planes were pulled out for political reasons.
Also JTF2 is a highly respected force similar to your special forces.

The military is not a large force but small and effective in certain areas.
To have a large military is pointless..we just dont have the funding.
a 2% gdp military is just as useless as a 50% gdp force.

Besides we spend far more money on intelligence...we don't go to war alone, we contribute with allies. You dont need an army if you dont go to war. If a world war broke out, we'd surely have a powerful force...reference WW2.

You're right, Canada really doesn't need a military. You are a relatively small country with no threats. The United States, on the otherhand has threats all over the place. The entire Middle East, China, Russia during the Cold War etc, so we need our large military. You also have the USA to fall back on, you know we'd never let anything happen to ya, no matter how much you love to hate us

For some of your stats, I'm getting different information from the CIA factbook. For example:

Infant Mortality Rate:
Canada: 4.82 deaths/1,000 live births
United States: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births

Mostly threats we have created ourselves.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: Vic
(Because you asked), such large reductions in your government debt and deficit indicate that Canadian taxpayers are being overtaxed and underserved by their government.

This is an abstraction not a proven fact. Poll? Governement data? Where are the facts to back this up?

It was not fair of you to only count federal income tax levels between the 2 countries without noting that Canada also has a national sales tax (GST) and VAT, both of which are regressive taxes and can be considerable.
Comparing the healthcare statistics was not fair either as Canada does not have certain social and ethnic problems that the US does,

Can you be more specific on this?

nor does Canada allow the type of nearly unchecked immigration that the US does

I have found it is easier to emmigrate to canada than to the US, of course if you live in mexico you can just walk across the rio grande...

(which means we get a lot more adults who immigrate from poorer countries with inadequate healthcare).

Yeah after all they come to the US because these economically POOR adults will be able to get beter healthcare they cannot afford in the first place.

The dietary habits of large numbers of Americans, combined with the rampant hypochondria and pill-abusing, don't help either.

I think this is more of a problem with our government and it's being bed buddies with the drugmakers. I would also like to note that I watch the CBC, and oddly enough Canada's government is more watchful and faster to react to drug issues than the US is. I will see a report on a problem with drug X in Canada and sometimes it is weeks or months before you hear something from our government warning us about it. If they even notify us at all!

Sorry, but I can just walk down a single street in downtown Vancouver and feel the higher tax burden. If only because everywhere you look are instructions from merchants as to how one can evade those taxes.

no comment on the last part as i have no basis for comment. Stunt perhaps you can glean some insight into this?

Ugh, must you nest all those quotes?

Answering:
If a government collects enough taxes to repays its debts at such a scale so rapidly, then obviously the people are paying more in taxes than they receive in services. Is this hard to understand? I agree that paying down the debts do serve the people, but not immediately or directly.

I will not be more specific on that issue. The PC'ers might call me a bigot, which I am NOT (just not blind).

I was referring to the Mexican reconquista, which is allowed to such a massive extent that they may as well call it legal. Many politicians openly encourage it.

But when they come to America after years in a poor healthcare system, it is only logical to assume that they will have (on average) more ailments and/or a shorter average lifespan, correct? Don't ask for statistics, asking to disprove this one would be the same as saying that adequate healthcare does not improve health and lifespan (on average), would it not?

Prescription drug abuse is a major problem in America. The US government is nothing if not corrupt. Don't overlook the hypochondria either. People go to the doctor for a sniffle nowadays, and the US healthcare system allows them to do that, same day.

They've paid off a 1/3rd their debt in about 10 years. How is that fast?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: alchemize
You can't compare the populations of the USA to Canada. Canada is like the USA, but without the problems the US has with a large population of minorities who haven't had the success whites have.

You think that was a troll?

Do minority populations in the US have higher incidence of crime and higher infant mortality? Does Canada have a lower minority population rate?

You stupid liberals have to realize that a conservative can make a simple statement of fact without being racist. I know that requires something other than a knee-jerk response, something you and infotroll and others are incapable of.

I'm not blaming the minorities, or absolving the non-minorities of anything. Quite the opposite, whites bear large responsibility for the history of minorities in this country. I'm making a demographic observance. So here's your right back, asshat.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: glenn1

Marriage no longer has anything to do with church.
A judge can wed these days...you can even modify the vows.
all it is is a piece of paper for the government.

Shows another valid difference in opinions between us. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all, for gays or straights. If you want your church to marry you and they're willing then go for it, be it a gay or straight marriage. I consider it a religious ceremony, not a civil one, and wouldn't want a judge performing one any more than I would want him performing baptisms or bah mitzvahs.

i agree 100% that gov't shouldnt be into marriage.
but for some reason they feel the need to recognize straights...but refuse to recognize gays.

Either advocate recognizing gay marriages or advocate the government not recognize straights.
Cant have it both ways...or there's a rights issue.

It was the gov'ts fault for blending church and state. Marriage is no longer a religious term...it can't be...has nothing to do with the church currently...if you can prove this i'd be impressed.

Stunt what do you think of the Quebec model for marraige. Just found out about it myself and kind of like the idea that the government doesn't hand out marraige licenses at all, but only civil unions. In my opinion this should satisfy both sides.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: alchemize
You can't compare the populations of the USA to Canada. Canada is like the USA, but without the problems the US has with a large population of minorities who haven't had the success whites have.

Yeah we have african americans and they have Canadien-français!
And they don't want to learn english! OMFGWTFBBQ! Send rove out! burn the witches!!
Too bad we can't round a bunch up and get them to move to rural part of red states for awhile, it sure would drive the bushies
nuts having their sheltered suburban stereotypes shattered.

oh yeah here's another Al, Someone baked a big batch earlier

 

[Whaspe]

The US doesn't have 54 senators wanting to make New York an independent state.

Parti du Bloc Québécois' sole purpose is to separate Quebec from Canada. They have 54 representatives in the house of commons.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Whaspe

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: glenn1

Marriage no longer has anything to do with church.
A judge can wed these days...you can even modify the vows.
all it is is a piece of paper for the government.

Shows another valid difference in opinions between us. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all, for gays or straights. If you want your church to marry you and they're willing then go for it, be it a gay or straight marriage. I consider it a religious ceremony, not a civil one, and wouldn't want a judge performing one any more than I would want him performing baptisms or bah mitzvahs.

i agree 100% that gov't shouldnt be into marriage.
but for some reason they feel the need to recognize straights...but refuse to recognize gays.

Either advocate recognizing gay marriages or advocate the government not recognize straights.
Cant have it both ways...or there's a rights issue.

It was the gov'ts fault for blending church and state. Marriage is no longer a religious term...it can't be...has nothing to do with the church currently...if you can prove this i'd be impressed.

Stunt what do you think of the Quebec model for marraige. Just found out about it myself and kind of like the idea that the government doesn't hand out marraige licenses at all, but only civil unions. In my opinion this should satisfy both sides.

Here you might like this little essay i wrote a while back
Here

I think we are on the same page
But in all honestly...if the gov't insists on having state and church integrated as in the states (see woman's right to choose, gay rights, evolution in schools etc) the other side deserves the same respect.
Therefore take marriage totally out of gov't or full manogamy (inc. gays) into gov't.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: alchemize
You can't compare the populations of the USA to Canada. Canada is like the USA, but without the problems the US has with a large population of minorities who haven't had the success whites have.

Yeah we have african americans and they have Canadien-français!
And they don't want to learn english! OMFGWTFBBQ! Send rove out! burn the witches!!
Too bad we can't round a bunch up and get them to move to rural part of red states for awhile, it sure would drive the bushies
nuts having their sheltered suburban stereotypes shattered.

oh yeah here's another Al, Someone baked a big batch earlier

See my response to MTI.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Stunt

I think we are on the same page
But in all honestly...if the gov't insists on having state and church integrated as in the states (see woman's right to choose, gay rights, evolution in schools etc) the other side deserves the same respect.
Therefore take marriage totally out of gov't or full manogamy (inc. gays) into gov't.

Thumbs up to that

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
The US doesn't have 54 senators wanting to make New York an independent state.

Parti du Bloc Québécois' sole purpose is to separate Quebec from Canada. They have 54 representatives in the house of commons.

The Bloc is the alternative to the Liberals. They are not actively trying to separate but merely looking out for quebec's interests...and they do it quite well.

I like the bloc a lot. They truely represent what the house of commons is all about...power to the people and their representatives. They have no power to separate and if you poll quebecers today you'd get a mized response. They want to be recognized as a distinct society but full separation from Canada is not their true goal.

Besides no politician in quebec in a leadership position would separate as quebec currently recieves massive amounts of government equalization payments and are far better off within canada than outside of canada.

It will be debated forever but quebecers perfer not to talk about it currently.

welcome to the forums btw.
nice to see someone well versed in canadian politics

 

[Whaspe]

The problem for me is that they use this tactic in order to receive handouts. Quebec could and very well should be a have province. However their manipulation of the system in this way leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. I will agree that I find Duceppe to be an admirable politician, but allowing this cherade to go on is pointless. In fact I'm all for letting Quebec separate, if only to get this whole silly business out of the way. Basically call their bluff and then sit down and figure things out.

 

[imported_Condor]

Liberalism isn't bad, liberals are. Socialism is a cood concept if you could get conservatives to run it. Communism is a good concept if you could get conservatives to run it.

 

[Whaspe]

lol

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Condor
Liberalism isn't bad, liberals are. Socialism is a cood concept if you could get conservatives to run it. Communism is a good concept if you could get conservatives to run it.

hahah

You actually have that right...our PM is quite conservative in the sense that he likes to see a dollar spent create more than a dollar earned...

If people were actually liberal with spending they'd flush it down the toilet on stupid things...like...oh...liberating foreign countries, paying the rich for no reason, etc...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize
You can't compare the populations of the USA to Canada. Canada is like the USA, but without the problems the US has with a large population of minorities who haven't had the success whites have.

Awwwwww, Rich Elite RRR FLL having a hard time living amongst the Non-rich in the U.S.???

Maybe better off going to a Country without the Non-Rich ilk.

Maybe then the U.S. could start to re-build it's character and strength without the Rich Boys crapping and peeing in the sand box.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Condor
Liberalism isn't bad, liberals are. Socialism is a cood concept if you could get conservatives to run it. Communism is a good concept if you could get conservatives to run it.

You are very freakin' ill. Have I ever told you that before? It's true. Seek help.

Listen carefully: if "conservatives" ran socialism or communism, they wouldn't be "conservatives" any more. Groups are not defined by the labels they give themselves, but by their actions.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Condor
Liberalism isn't bad, liberals are. Socialism is a cood concept if you could get conservatives to run it. Communism is a good concept if you could get conservatives to run it.

You are very freakin' ill. Have I ever told you that before? It's true. Seek help.

Listen carefully: if "conservatives" ran socialism or communism, they wouldn't be "conservatives" any more. Groups are not defined by the labels they give themselves, but by their actions.

I think he was refering to the primal definition of Conservative and Liberal.

ie. i am conservative with eating carbs, liberal in eating protiens.

All good leaders have a good instinct on where to allocate resouces.
They need to be conservative with their spending even if they are running a medicare program, welfare program, daycare program etc. These are all traditional liberal areas, but can be managed effectively by conserving funds.

wrap your mind around that

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think he was refering to the primal definition of Conservative and Liberal.

ie. i am conservative with eating carbs, liberal in eating protiens.

All good leaders have a good instinct on where to allocate resouces.
They need to be conservative with their spending even if they are running a medicare program, welfare program, daycare program etc. These are all traditional liberal areas, but can be managed effectively by conserving funds.

wrap your mind around that

I prefer "everything in moderation".

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think he was refering to the primal definition of Conservative and Liberal.

ie. i am conservative with eating carbs, liberal in eating protiens.

All good leaders have a good instinct on where to allocate resouces.
They need to be conservative with their spending even if they are running a medicare program, welfare program, daycare program etc. These are all traditional liberal areas, but can be managed effectively by conserving funds.

wrap your mind around that

I prefer "everything in moderation".

Define moderate.
I know moderate ppl in the states, in canada and in norway.

Vastly different mindsets.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Condor
Liberalism isn't bad, liberals are. Socialism is a cood concept if you could get conservatives to run it. Communism is a good concept if you could get conservatives to run it.

You are very freakin' ill. Have I ever told you that before? It's true. Seek help.

Listen carefully: if "conservatives" ran socialism or communism, they wouldn't be "conservatives" any more. Groups are not defined by the labels they give themselves, but by their actions.

I guess that's why liberals are bad!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There is no accountability in the Canadian social model.

Please explain how this is so.

BSE anyone?

Cookie anyone? What the hell does BSE have to do with the Canadian social model?

[*]Stunts premise is that the Canadian Social model is not inferior to that of the Us.

[*] Stunt said that there was no debate.

[*] I entered a contension to prove that there was in-fact debate to be had.

Are you really that daft, or is it just an act?

Actually his premise was that Canada's social policy was more liberal, and that there could be little debate about this. I'm inclined to agree. The statement had nothing to do with superior/inferior.

And FTR Canada's BSE screening procedures are actually more thorough than American ones, but still leave a great deal to be desired, in comparison to European standards, which are currently the best in the world, as far as I know.