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



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 8 of 9
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 5712
Reputation: 136.2
votes: 27
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, what the nanny staters and socialists fail to realize, is that it is government regulation that creates the boom bust cycle in the first place. How can government be trusted to solve the problem that it created? Only in the minds of the statists.
WestViking





Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 1192
Reputation: 52.5
votes: 27

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Yes, what the nanny staters and socialists fail to realize, is that it is government regulation that creates the boom bust cycle in the first place. How can government be trusted to solve the problem that it created? Only in the minds of the statists.
Really? an unregulated financial sector in the US went sour. A regulated financial system in Canada did not. How do you account for the difference?
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 736
Reputation: 28.9Reputation: 28.9Reputation: 28.9
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WestViking wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
Yes, what the nanny staters and socialists fail to realize, is that it is government regulation that creates the boom bust cycle in the first place. How can government be trusted to solve the problem that it created? Only in the minds of the statists.
Really? an unregulated financial sector in the US went sour. A regulated financial system in Canada did not. How do you account for the difference?
I'm generally not big on the nanny state (I really hate the cellphone laws for example) but I'm with WestViking on this one. I was aghast when the financial system was totally deregulated under Clinton.

I knew this wouldn't end well. It's like putting Bernie Madoff in as Finance Minister.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 5712
Reputation: 136.2
votes: 27
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Totally deregulated, yep. You could not even lift the pile of books with all the current regulation printed in 6 point type. Yeah, no regulation to see, not even one. US corporation operate outside of all law. Yep.

PS. I know, you are about to deny that you are nanny staters, or socialists, or whatever; you are only making common cause with them. Once you get capitalism properly fettered, and enough government regulation in place, you will go back to opposing the socialists. Let me know how that works out for you.
WestViking





Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 1192
Reputation: 52.5
votes: 27

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Totally deregulated, yep. You could not even lift the pile of books with all the current regulation printed in 6 point type. Yeah, no regulation to see, not even one. US corporation operate outside of all law. Yep.

PS. I know, you are about to deny that you are nanny staters, or socialists, or whatever; you are only making common cause with them. Once you get capitalism properly fettered, and enough government regulation in place, you will go back to opposing the socialists. Let me know how that works out for you.
You can't even take a position without and ad hominim attack thrown in. So much for the principles you claim.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 5712
Reputation: 136.2
votes: 27
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I said, once you get all the regulations you want in place, and you are done making common cause with anti-capitalists, let me know how that worked out. If it comes out the way you thought it would. Until then, I am simply not interested in anything you have to say, so stop your whinging, stop your crying, and suck it up.
WestViking





Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 1192
Reputation: 52.5
votes: 27

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
As I said, once you get all the regulations you want in place, and you are done making common cause with anti-capitalists, let me know how that worked out. If it comes out the way you thought it would. Until then, I am simply not interested in anything you have to say, so stop your whinging, stop your crying, and suck it up.
Is that perchance because you could not reply here?

kwlafayette wrote:
Yes, what the nanny staters and socialists fail to realize, is that it is government regulation that creates the boom bust cycle in the first place. How can government be trusted to solve the problem that it created? Only in the minds of the statists.
Really? an unregulated financial sector in the US went sour. A regulated financial system in Canada did not. How do you account for the difference?
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3306
Reputation: 67.9
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Government activism played a huge role in creating this mess - everything from poorly concieved regulations like the CRA, to manipulations of the market through institutions like F Mac and F Mae, to abuse of fractional reserve banking systems and active interference with legitimate regulatory bodies ... the list goes on.

There is a role for prudent, macro level regulation, as even Hayek and Mises acknowledged. However, joining the crying over the 'failure of capitalism' due to a 'lack of regulations' is conceding control of the narrative to the corrupt, nepotistic politicians, bureacrats, and corporate bagmen that led the US down the garden path in the first place. The cheque you think you're endorsing for sound management is being cashed to wage class warfare.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 5712
Reputation: 136.2
votes: 27
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is precisely the thing that so many people do not get. They think that they can police the process, they can be the reasonable voice, and only reasonable and well thought out regulation will get through in the end. Then, at the end of the process, they believe that the enemies of capitalism will be satisfied, and will stop pushing for more.

The truth is, the socialists want to pin this one on capitalism, and if they succeed, things will get worse. It is very simple, very black and white. If you want to stop socialism, then you actually have to, at some point, disagree with the stated goals of the socialists.
mowich





Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 26
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Should a leadership review become an issue, I believe that Stephen Harper has much to account for. His behaviour in the first sitting of Parliament was simply stupid. Though he seems to have toned down his animosity for the opposition, he must not show his arrogance towards them. I was pleased with his performance at the G8 and am willing to back him for the present.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 736
Reputation: 28.9Reputation: 28.9Reputation: 28.9
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mowich wrote:
Should a leadership review become an issue, I believe that Stephen Harper has much to account for. His behaviour in the first sitting of Parliament was simply stupid. Though he seems to have toned down his animosity for the opposition, he must not show his arrogance towards them. I was pleased with his performance at the G8 and am willing to back him for the present.
The plotting for a "coalition" or coup was fairly well known and Harper had to smoke it out before the LPC, Bloc and NDP could tank the government at a time of their choosing and beat a path to the GG first.
cbasu





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 287
Reputation: 45.8Reputation: 45.8Reputation: 45.8Reputation: 45.8Reputation: 45.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A new poll from Ekos/CBC -- Conservatives 30, Liberals 37; Conservatives polling below the NDP in Quebec at 10%.

On another front, Lawrence Martin of the G&M opines that the Tories can't sell another Albertan leader and feels that Charest is the Saviour-in-Waiting. I'm willing to bet that the "Conservative source" in Martin's column is Goldy Hyder :-)
ezbeatz





Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 1134
Reputation: 42.2Reputation: 42.2Reputation: 42.2Reputation: 42.2
votes: 10
Location: Vaughan, ON

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OMG, I laughed when I saw that poll. They have the Tories at 32% in ON and only 31% in SK/MB. 31%!!! The Libs are at 39% in SK/MB. They had the Liberals at 25% and the NDP at 5% in AB. And they had the Libs ahead of the Tories in BC.

So, in the four provinces with 92 seats of which the Liberals only won 7 last election, they're now leading in 3 of the 4 provinces and 2nd in Alberta. YEAH RIGHT! EKOS did this poll with the CBC so I'm assuming they only polled listeners to CBC Radio 1.

Surprise! Jack Layton, Lizzy May, Iggo Waffle, and Duceppe all polled better on the approval index than Harper.
ezbeatz





Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 1134
Reputation: 42.2Reputation: 42.2Reputation: 42.2Reputation: 42.2
votes: 10
Location: Vaughan, ON

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the same poll.

Role for diversity in building a more tolerant society
Q. Which of the following two statements comes closest to your own point of view?

Having a multicultural blend of different cultures provides a richer, more tolerant society - 64%
Too much diversity can weaken a society and it would be better if we all subscribed to the same values and culture - 31%
DK/NR - 5%
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2234
Reputation: 56
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ezbeatz wrote:
From the same poll.

Role for diversity in building a more tolerant society
Q. Which of the following two statements comes closest to your own point of view?

Having a multicultural blend of different cultures provides a richer, more tolerant society - 64%
Too much diversity can weaken a society and it would be better if we all subscribed to the same values and culture - 31%
DK/NR - 5%


What the hell kind of poll is this? It seems skewed all over.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 8 of 9

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next  


 
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 cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


A plan to overthrow Harper?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB