Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:35 am    Post subject: Conservatism vs. Toronto Centre, Liberals & Socialists Reply with quote

I believe in…

• Conservatism, conservative values and benefits, should be taught at schools. But Liberals, a majority in academe, despise Conservatives and label many wise political pundits and voters "neoconservatives" as a pejorative word. In reality... “At the deepest level, neoconservatism was a commitment to restore objective truth in public life, and yet the neocons were charged with promoting the politics of force and deception.” (from “World Turned Upside Down” by Melanie Phillips)

• Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But numerous leftists in Canada, such as the mainstream media, called him scary, too tough, authoritarian, and unlikable. Really? In America there is Hillsdale College, a private conservative college, not funded by the government. Smart move. Wise. Maybe something like that is required in Canada. Stephen Harper is a conservative who has restored objective truth in public life, as far as I am concerned. He is a great Statesman, highly respected around the world. And with a majority Conservative government most Canadians would even be more satisfied; perhaps be in a far better position than before with Jean Chrétien and Pierre Trudeau.

• The views of William F. Buckley Jr., Rush Limbaugh, William Gairdner, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Benyamin Netanyahu, and Brian Mulroney (Too bad Mr. Mulroney’s hubris overwhelmed his smart and decent efforts and legacy). Financially, down to earth Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty resurrected “live within your means” during the world economic crisis.

• Less government; less taxes; stronger borders; illegal immigrants try legally or else; citizens accept a contract of the rules of law — and Canada and America first.

• Longer and harder time for heinous crimes. Bring back the death sentence. Judges who are lenient ought to invite the early-paroled criminal to stay at their house or perhaps visit the jails and stay overnight.

• Less entitlements: the list is long.

• Human Rights Commissions abolished or limited.

• No unions. Civil servants and teachers etc. No tenure for professors.

• Civil Rights (Egalitarian Movement) removed or restricted, particularly where the minorities take advantage of the majorities, or the capable are overlooked in jobs for minorities, particularly visible minorities who believe that the smarter or more educated, more capable white guy has had his or her share. Or they are not bilingual enough, they are not Quebecois, and do not appreciate French republic socialist Statism. The same with gay white guys and lesbians, because some of the left say they are also generally visible minorities and should be chosen over straight whites, especially conservatives, since the homosexual community is considered black, metaphorically.

• Changing Same-Sex Marriage back to common sense. If they adopt a child does the poor kid call the two gay men, mommy, and the two lesbians, daddy? This change of culture was a judge’s fault, and those Canadians who didn’t vote for a majority conservative government.

• Parliament and people should set the laws not judges who change them because of the Charter of Rights in Canada and the “Notwithstanding Clause”.

• Forget multiculturalism: many cultures do not assimilate, they create enclaves and ghettos.

• No phony outreach programs, such as the forked-tongue Muslim extremist suggestion that Sharia law is good for the Muslims in Canada or America, good for us infidels.

• Pro-Zionism. Pro-Israel, a democracy and ally surrounded by those who want them annihilated. The neighbouring Muslim nations doubtlessly soiled their pants and robes when natural gas was found off the shores of Israel. Imagine if the Jews had found oil, too.

• Defeating medieval Islamists as long as it takes. Mentalist Kreskin said that the war would last longer than any human being alive today lives. So be it. The jihadists and clerics think in centuries. And we should stop thinking in just days, months, years and not give up early.

• Pro-Military, better equipment; Pro-War when necessary, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, perhaps Iran and North Korea. America is still a major force. So the Chicoms shouldn’t get too big for their britches.

• Dismantling the United Nations or start a Democratic Nations. Such an egregious folly... allowing totalitarian countries to veto in the Security Council… never mind the Human Rights Tribunal. Then there’s the Nobel Peace Prize with winners such as Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Barack Hussein Obama. All a joke.

• Manmade global warming or climate change theories are questionable. Geneticist David Suzuki was a bit unhinged when he suggested “political leaders should be thrown into jail for the ‘intergenerational crime’ of denying manmade global warming” (from “The World Turned Upside Down” by Melanie Phillips). An Ojibway/Elder said the Mother Earth always heals itself. Father Sky and Universe watches over.

• Freedom of Speech. Except I think those who are traitors, such as that inimical, gay military chap who leaked government and military information, should lose another freedom for a long, long time. In the cell beside him the WikiLeaks fellow.

• FOX NEWS in America and the new SUN NEWS NETWORK in Canada. A counter-balance to the mainstream leftist activists.

• There might be Intelligent Design (a Creator). Who wants to think they came from a monkey or an amoeba from water? But I once dated a woman with fish lips and scales. She thought I was an ape —- an orangutan — and she said my arms and legs were all over her. Not so. My limbs kept her away.

I believe in many more things and could continue, but you get the point. I am of the right, and on certain issues hard-right. I disagree with most of the political views locally and globally of the liberals, socialists, communists, anarchists, special interest groups of libertines, and from CBC, BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the rags of the United Kingdom etc. —- basically all that are against conservatism.

And how about you?


Last edited by Edmund Onward James on Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used to receive comments from Muslims and converted Muslims on my weblog. One being a Dutchman in Morocco, who tried to proselytize or at least explain the beauty of Islam. The people of the Netherlands must be nonplussed.

Following is an interesting comment. What do you think? Is this person correct, am I a flip-flopper about Free Speech, and by supporting the military and wars a believer in Big Government?

JJ said...

Hello Onward James

Your little manifesto is quite impressive, but I am compelled to point out a couple of glaring inconsistencies:

First, you either believe in free speech or you don't. There is no "except..." In that case, what you believe in is not "free speech", it's "free opinions that Onward James happens to agree with".

Also, if you support wars of aggression and the massive expenditures required to conduct them, if you support state-sanctioned murder as a punitive measure (particularly in light of the legal system's fallibility, and, well, corruption), and if you support the government dictating personal choices like marriage, then you do not believe in less or smaller government... you believe in BIG government. You just want it to waste money and meddle in different things.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
Is this person correct, am I a flip-flopper about Free Speech, and by supporting the military and wars a believer in Big Government?


He is spot on.

It seems you suffer from hubris. Not to mention hypocrisy. Not surprising, its the internet.

You want Conservative values taught, yet abhor Liberal values taught. Heres an idea, how about no political values taught.

A Conservative College in canada would be a good idea? What the hell do you think UCC, St Georges,Crescent are? All within 10K of each other.

You admire....Limbaugh and Reagan in that list? Kind of like throwing a Sh*t sandwich in a picnic basket of gourmet food. You might eat it, but it still a Sh* sandwich. Tip, dont put blowhards in a list of thinkers.

Less govt, but at the same time you want to restrict freedoms. Well, which is it?

What does gay marriage have to do with anything. Doesnt hurt you, doesnt hurt me, no one gets hurt. The kids can call them chuck and larry for all I care. Heres a clue relating to your hubris. MYOB .Marriage is an institution that thousands of people have crapped on for years, and now its some sanctimonious thing? The govt needs to butt out of marriage, let whoever marry whoever. And yes...anyone can get a loicence and call it marriage.Lets not forget studies show same sex families produce kids every bit as bright and adjusted as any other.

America first? How about you leave it at Canada first. You are dissalusioned if you think the reverse is ever true. The Yanks would sell us out in a second if they had to.

You are all for restricting rights and freedoms, and you rail against the very judges that uphold them since you may not agree with their court decisions. Thankfully they do their job and do a damn fine job at it. I dont agree with all they do, but they do it well 99% of the time.

More prisons, more jail time....for what? Crime is down but we need to be protected? Poppycock.

Blame the media....blah blah blah...


You seem like a smart guy, but you aint using it well.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello moderators and other forum members, look who has inflitrated. Toronto Centre (Church & Wellesley area?) is not conseravtive, not even close... more of an agitator that contributes rants with invectives. I suppose that's okay, freedom of speech, but whoever (hides behind TOC) has limited knowledge.

Enough politics is taught, but look who is teaching. I suggested Conservatism taught at Hillsdale College http://www.hillsdale.edu/ I subscrided to Imprimis, the free monthly speech digest of Hillsdale College.

UCC is not enough and I wonder who teaches there and what they teach. Since you are aware perhaps you might inform. You criticize Limbaugh and Reagan etc, but with the comments you have made you oviously are out of your league and do not come close.

"Rule of Law" restricts anarchist-type freedom, moron. And certain regulations are required... since we do not live in utopia like you seem to want. Serious crime has not declined, fool. Furthermore, Canada and the provinces have been filled up with Liberal judges. A lax jurisprudence system. By the way...

Doesn't liberalism, socialism even unregulated libertarianism, which sometimes leans to being a libertine, cause hemorrhoids.

But perhaps we expect too much from Toronto-Centre who thinks he or she, maybe a hermaphrodite married to itself, is a critical thinker. And TO-centre you can't spell, or take the time to edit what you posted, which indicates...

The metaphorical bar, for political pundits or just wannabe wonks, has been lowered to bottom-feeders.

Just my opinion, not the rest of the forum members.


Last edited by Edmund Onward James on Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
Hello moderators and other forum members, look who has inflitrated. Toronto Centre (Church & Wellesley area?) is not conseravtive, not even close... more of an agitator that contributes rants with invectives. I suppose that's okay, freedom of speech, but whoever (hides behind TOC) has limited knowledge.

Infiltrated huh? I thought anyone could walk in the front door and be a member.

As for conservative, in some cases yes, in some ways no. Voted Conservative in the last election, and have voted that way before but not exclusively. Economically yes, socially, no.Does that help you label me?

Church and Wellesley , lovely spot, oh...you must mean I am gay. Ok, think what you want. And if I am ...so what?

You sir are free to suggest limited knowledge on my part, but it would seem, at least in part to your prolific postings on this site, that perhaps you would best look in the mirror.I find your conclusions in many cases are not supported by facts (Case in point on another thread re:piracy and your positting that Piracy is an issue now because of Democrats in the White House, when in fact Piracy has had a resurgence for more than a decade and we both know who has been in the White House )
Quote:

UCC is not enough and I wonder who teaches there and what they teach. Since you are aware perhaps you might inform. You criticize Limbaugh and Reagan etc, but with the comments you have made you oviously are out of your league and do not come close.

Well, I attended one of those schools, was at all of them enough to know tha curriculum.My teachers preached personal responsibility,respect,family values et al.Cheating, drug or alcohol use, dress code violations were grounds for immediate dismissal . With the amount of tuition doled out by our parents, you sure as hell didnt want to explain to mom or dad why you got heaved.
Captains of industry are the result. But they did their very best to balance lives with a healthy dose of volunteerism. We all had ingrained in us that the world was ours , most of us knew it, but we had to be mindful of those less fortunate. Help up, not hand out was a common refrain.

As for Limbaugh , please think twice before foisting that man on anything but his on petard. He is a hypocrite of the worst kind. Do as I say not as I do. I put no weight on his opinion anymore than one would put Al Franken on the left. As for Reagan you chose not to refute with fact any point I made . So if you think it is I that is out of my league....well, show me.
Quote:

"Rule of Law" restricts anarchist-type freedom, moron. And certain regulations are required... since we do not live in utopia like you seem to want. Serious crime has not declined, fool. Furthermore, Canada and the provinces have been filled up with Liberal judges. A lax jurisprudence system. By the way...

Of course regulations are required. I believe I never said otherwise. Perhaps you're eluding to the marriage part of my post. Fair enough. But one example does not make for a case of anarchism.

Serious crime has not declined? Why would Stats Can , in 2006 (last reported year) say that we had the lowest crime rate in the past 25 years? Since 1991 the crime rate has been dropping. Shall I go on? I live in Ontario and enjoy the lowest crime rate in the nation. Perhaps you live out west where it is worse. I do not know, but either way, I have no use for more prisons when we have more pressing issues to deal with.

Liberal judges is a refrain I hear quite a lot. Never makes sense to me. As one who has more than a passing interest in law, and one who has to deal in that profession quite a bit, it always makes me curious why people think they are Liberal. You of course have not one idea of how they vote, yet you can confidently ascertain without knowing 99.9% of them that you do . Tell me, how does that work?
Quote:

But perhaps we expect too much from Toronto-Centre who thinks he or she, maybe a hermaphrodite married to itself, is a critical thinker. And TO-centre you can't spell, or take the time to edit what you posted, which indicates...

No Sir I do not consider myself a critical thinker. But then again, I really need not be,since your post was full of silly notions, hyprocrisy and contradictions, of which none you chose to refute. You really seem hung up on my sexuality.

I am lousy on editting posts, simply because I dont have much time, and frankly m,y point is normally not lost because of it. For that I apologize and will try a bit harder.

Funny enough on that spelling thing........

Quote:

The metaphiorical bar, for political pundits or just wannabe wonks, has been lowered to bottom-feeders.

Just my opinion, not the rest of the forum members.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TorontoCentre I wear bifocals and I am dyslexic at times with computer monitors. But when someone comments, I edit. You do not because you are oh so busy... busy aggravating.

Type on word, check spelling and grammar, then paste. Because you come across as not only limited but not Conservative at all.

There are many forum members that are different: some fiscally conservative others socially, then there are many libertarian conservatives... and if they comment or post something questionable they are criticized and challenged by others... but they take it and do not whine like you have, when I countered your obtuse (stupid for you) comments about some of my Conservative belief posting.

Furthermore, you are not in the same league as self-made, autodidact Limbaugh, who happens to be quite intelligent and entertaining. He welcomes liberals on his program, because they might learn and realize what a foolish mistake they have made. You probably listen to John Moore on Newstalk 1010 who says he is also conservative and has Andrew Coyne of Macleans Magazine on one of his panels in the morning. Coyne dresses conservatively but he is far from it.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
TorontoCentre I wear bifocals and I am dyslexic at times with computer monitors. But when someone comments, I edit. You do not because you are oh so busy... busy aggravating.

You commented on my spelling, and I agreed. I am at times very busy and not prone to clear spelling mistakes. I said I would try harder and I have. My point is if the message is clear enough then I have no issues with the spelling. But come on, your spelling is not on the par you think it is after reading around this website.Minor mistakes do not make that much difference, at least I would hope not. Your message is not lost on me in the same manner so why the angst?
Quote:

Type on word, check spelling and grammar, then paste. Because you come across as not only limited but not Conservative at all.

Again, your opinion and you are welcome to it and to denigrate my schooling all you want.
Quote:

... and if they comment or post something questionable they are criticized and challenged by others... but they take it and do not whine like you have, when I countered your obtuse (stupid for you) comments about some of my Conservative belief posting.

I would request you point out my "whine" as it were, I thought we were doscussing things. You like Reagan, fine by me. Where I challenged was the belief by most that he was all for reducing govt and debt, yet he wasnt. I cannot put a spin on the facts as they lay. He grew both debt, and govt.
Quote:

Furthermore, you are not in the same league as self-made, autodidact Limbaugh, who happens to be quite intelligent and entertaining. He welcomes liberals on his program, because they might learn and realize what a foolish mistake they have made.

You Sir are quite correct in that I am not in his league. He has way more money than I will likely ever see.But I cannot stand hypocrites at all. I find him a hypocrite of the highest order. He made , in some small part, his anti-drug stance a platform for railing against drug abusers and suggesting they should die. Well, except when he gets caught. Apart from that, I do not consider him stupid .

Rush rarely has anyone on his show,the same since the inception of it. Callers , yes, guests rarely.
Thats a fact, how can one say he welcomes on his show, when in fact it is a rarity, let alone liberal or conservative.

You seem to be the most prolific poster around, and in that sense a lot of what I read is yours. Naturally then when I post, chances are it comes up against one of yours.

I hope that in time you will respect the message and go after it, instead of the messenger.

In closing , I will point to your very own words, the very last words of your post.....
"And how about you? " Well, I am me and replied. If you didnt want anyone to comment, why include it?
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes , you do come across nonplussed. Check this weblog, and all the links to facts and opinions. www.onwardjames.blogspot.com which will clarify where I stand. No need to let us, or at least me know where you are in the scheme of thngs.

Nonetheless, perhaps, you might learn something from this forum and convert to conservatism.

Some of the countries where there are subscribers and/or periodic readers of Onward James: Taiwan, Hong Kong, UK, France, Sweden, Australia, Phillipines, Ukraine, United States. Of course many in Canada. On the feedburner site there is a load of information, who, what etc. check the weblog. 24 unkown. But I gather they are communists, Islamists, anarchists and forth.

The Chicoms probably have a red flag attached to my name and they read every piece that I comment about China or mention it.

By the way, many decent people get addicted to something unaware, especially pharmaceutical drugs. Limbaugh is far from being perfect... but perhaps you might know of someone.

Now if you were a cigar smoking homosexual, that would be acceptable. But Same-Sex Marriage was never acceptable to me and most of the country. We got bamboozled. And as you will read other postings or my weblog I am not fond of the Gay Communities pushing the envelope.

And since you brought up drugs... how about the drug cocktails that the taxpayers have paid for AIDS? I suppose you are going to say it's not just a homosexual problem.

But from articles I have read, forgot the titles and authors, HIV and AIDS decreased then increased because of the drug cocktails. There are those who think they can play because there are drugs and, with all the research and money from the people, there will be a cure. But you don't hear or read much in the mainstream media.

And how about the anti-Israel faction of the Gay Pride? Give me a break. Thank goodness the Conservative government has cut grants and donations. The pride people can fork it up.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
Yes , you do come across nonplussed. Check this weblog, and all the links to facts and opinions. www.onwardjames.blogspot.com which will clarify where I stand. No need to let us, or at least me know where you are in the scheme of thngs.

James, with all due respect it is not "I" that needs to go looking to prove your point to me.That is your job. For instance you could show me where Reagan shrunk the government, shrunk taxes etc.
I did not sign up here to go read your blog. Congrats on the wide scope of your viewers by the way.
Quote:

Nonetheless, perhaps, you might learn something from this forum and convert to conservatism.

I have already learned something. As a non religious person I do not convert to anything. I can modify my opinion on things, that is for sure, but as for convert, what is it I am now? Gee, now that I say that it would seem I am nothing...LOL. Oh well, better no lable than one I disagree with.

Quote:
The Chicoms probably have a red flag attached to my name and they read every piece that I comment about China or mention it.

That could be true, but in the scheme of things, not to mention the abundance of blogs out there, I doubt you are on their radar.
Quote:

By the way, many decent people get addicted to something unaware, especially pharmaceutical drugs. Limbaugh is far from being perfect... but perhaps you might know of someone.

I know lots of 'someone'.

See here is where you trip up. Limbaugh is was and always will be far from being perfect. But he espoused death to druggies. You want him to receive pity for something he was never able to give (at least on his show) That is what you are saying is it not?

He gets the same slack that he was prepared to give..none.
Quote:

Now if you were a cigar smoking homosexual, that would be acceptable. But Same-Sex Marriage was never acceptable to me and most of the country. We got bamboozled. And as you will read other postings or my weblog I am not fond of the Gay Communities pushing the envelope.

Am I cool if a cigarette smoking homosexual?

I understand being gay is not acceptable to you, and many others too. You'll find no animosity for that. I am not fond of religion , however if one is not proselytizing in my face then they are free to carry on. I would hope that you give the same concern to the avg gay person.

As for gay marriage not being acceptable to most the country is not the issue.

The issue is fairness and the Charter of Rights. Our persistent denial of rights to people was an issue the government needed to address, or the courts. Either way, agree of disgree with the optics, the truth is rights had been denied.

The South didnt want slavery abolished , but it was since it was a denial of rights.
Quote:
[
And since you brought up drugs... how about the drug cocktails that the taxpayers have paid for AIDS? I suppose you are going to say it's not just a homosexual problem.

Im not going to say it is, I will let the experts say that.
Among women, AIDS was increasing early in the preceeding decade.HIV postive tests for women have held steady.
Men are still the number one group. The largest group increasing is single black women in the US. (N AM)
http://www.avert.org/canada-aids.htm
Quote:
And how about the anti-Israel faction of the Gay Pride? Give me a break. Thank goodness the Conservative government has cut grants and donations. The pride people can fork it up.

How about that. Are you aware the CJC had an equal presence at the Gay Parade? So...could one make the case of free speech being limited , vis a vis Rob Fords recent press release?
I would think so.
Pride brings an enormous amount of money into Toronto. The hotels are booked, restaurants full , taverns packed. All of it generating revenue that goes to the City or the Feds, so in that case it is all good.

People have the freedom to do what they please James. It is a free society and of course some things dont please me but I move on and mind my own business.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to prove to you? You must be smoking hemp? Gayness is not the problem wth me. I made my points. And...

Many gay directors, producers and entertainers loved me, in the emotional not physical way, when I was in the fashion biz and showbusiness.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
I have to prove to you? You must be smoking hemp? Gayness is not the problem wth me. I made my points. And...

Hemp is a lousy smoke.....or so I've been told. :wink:
You are well aware of course that I referred to points to prove your ascersions concerning Reagan and the other points made.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have better things to do than repartee with you. However, since you express a sense of humour and intend to learn on this forum rather than rant and disrupt I have included some valuable input.

I was a Reaganite. Therefore I shall kick start it for your own effort. He cut taxes at the right time and increased them at the right time but look what period he was in. That is for you to check.

Nouriel Roubini ( a keynesian) known as Dr Doom, would suit you about Reaganomics . He is a renowned economist and from his webiste...

Ronald Reagan the Keynesian
http://www.roubini.com/us-moni....._keynesian

Reagan Tax Cuts and Increases
http://www.roubini.com/us-moni....._increases

http://nourielroubiniblog.blogspot.com/

However... here are other points of view from a libertarian and a conservative who writes for one of my favourites: National Review with the best.

You are aware that Reagan inherited two houses that were controlled by the spendthrift Democrats. Plus the economy was in turmoil.

Reaganomics, Obamanomics, and Carternomics
http://danieljmitchell.wordpre.....ternomics/

Larry Kudlow on Reagonmics
http://old.nationalreview.com/.....100915.asp

Reaganomics 2.0 in the Driver’s Seat
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....rry-kudlow

By the way, Toronto Centre, you are not Georgie Smitherman are you? He is the type that might be doing what you are... plunge in, divide and conquer.


Last edited by Edmund Onward James on Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 637
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
By the way, Toronto Centre, you are not Georgie Smitherman are you? He is the type that might be doing what you are... plunge in, divide and conquer.

I assure you I am not George Smitherman , not in any way shape or form.

Well, partly bald too, beyond that, nada.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
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
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Conservatism vs. Toronto Centre, Liberals & Socialists

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB