whats up with the hard on for lefties
BartSimpson @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 am
Gunnair Gunnair:
That's funny as hell. Not that the US benefited by having a massive friendly landmass with a small military - in other words, zero threat - unlike say Cuba to the south which has been a thorn in its side for decades. 
The US knew it could not take Canada away from the British Empire and after WW II it didn't need to. It instead used Canada as a massive northern buffer with the Atlantic and Pacific on its flanks. It's allowed you to play in the south though not very well; you guys failed in Cuba.
Don't think for a moment you guys would not have sacrificed your northern neighbour in a scorched earth campaign had the Soviets come out of the north.
The US knew it could not take Canada away from the British Empire and after WW II it didn't need to. It instead used Canada as a massive northern buffer with the Atlantic and Pacific on its flanks. It's allowed you to play in the south though not very well; you guys failed in Cuba.
Don't think for a moment you guys would not have sacrificed your northern neighbour in a scorched earth campaign had the Soviets come out of the north.
In WW2 and on into much of the 1950's Canada had the third most powerful navy in the world. And, for a time, Canada also sported nuclear weapons.
But you're right that the USA benfitted from having a friend to our north!
As to the Soviets coming over the pole to come through Canada to attack the USA?
I'm sure the Princess Pats' would've enjoyed the live-fire training exercise.
Jabberwalker @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:05 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Gunnair Gunnair:
That's funny as hell. Not that the US benefited by having a massive friendly landmass with a small military - in other words, zero threat - unlike say Cuba to the south which has been a thorn in its side for decades.
The US knew it could not take Canada away from the British Empire and after WW II it didn't need to. It instead used Canada as a massive northern buffer with the Atlantic and Pacific on its flanks. It's allowed you to play in the south though not very well; you guys failed in Cuba.
Don't think for a moment you guys would not have sacrificed your northern neighbour in a scorched earth campaign had the Soviets come out of the north.
The US knew it could not take Canada away from the British Empire and after WW II it didn't need to. It instead used Canada as a massive northern buffer with the Atlantic and Pacific on its flanks. It's allowed you to play in the south though not very well; you guys failed in Cuba.
Don't think for a moment you guys would not have sacrificed your northern neighbour in a scorched earth campaign had the Soviets come out of the north.
In WW2 and on into much of the 1950's Canada had the third most powerful navy in the world. And, for a time, Canada also sported nuclear weapons.
But you're right that the USA benfitted from having a friend to our north!
As to the Soviets coming over the pole to come through Canada to attack the USA?
I'm sure the Princess Pats' would've enjoyed the live-fire training exercise.
Two of our three nuclear weapons systems (Bomarc and Genie) were meant to be exploded over OUR airspace to destroy incoming Soviet bomber formations destined for U.S. targets. As Gunnair indicated ... scorched earth ... literally.
As for our Navy, it is to our national shame that the country with the longest coastline on Earth ... on THREE OCEANS can't deploy much more than a Frigate at a time. We are land lubbers at heart, apparently and the relative benevolence of our relationship with the U.S.A. has made us lazy, complacent and cheap.
herbie @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:08 am
$1:
As to the Soviets coming over the pole to come through Canada to attack the USA?
Bart we've heard that line for over 50 years. Only with missiles and planes, anything else is like that old movie about China tunneling through the center of the Earth to attack the USA.
Count_Lothian @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:21 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I find the hostitlity is mroe correlated to distnce from the centre, as opposed to whether one is left or right.
I agree, the further from the centre one positions themselves the more they become fanatical and obtuse to those near the centre.
Public_Domain Public_Domain:
I aggressively disagree!
lol
$1:
Being a dick in politics has less to do with being political and more to do with being a dick.
True enough for the actual politician.
But what of those eh!, who are nothing more than the arm chair warriors that aggressively challenge anything and everything in order to be a dick?
$1:
Just because I'm a radical doesn't mean I'm a bad person, 
No !!!of course not, just a dick.
Zipperfish @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:03 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Was that Harper though, or was that the banking regulations that were there before Harper took office?
It was a combination of all of that plus the convenience of living next door to the United States whose military (for now, at least) will absolutely curbstomp anyone attacking Canada.
Ukraine has the misfortune of living next door to a neighbor that's currently curbstomping Ukraine.[/quote]
One of the guys I knew in Afghanistan said the same thing. "It's bad enough here, but plus they've got assholes for neighbours."
smorgdonkey @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:28 am
I think the hostility is a way of dismissing things rather than considering things. React quickly with a "AWWW not this LEFTY BS again!!" and it gives the impression that the 'righty' has heard it before and considered it before. It's a way of deflecting.
Deflect this:
After the (RIGHTY) Mulroney was done in 1993 the Conservatives (righties) chalked up a $38 Billion deficit. By 2006, under non-conservative (LEFTY) leadership, this had been turned around into a $16 Billion surplus. Four years later, and Harper's Conservatives (RIGHTY) had returned Canada to a record $56 Billion deficit. Another $16 Billion last quarter...good thing all of the numbers in the 4 year gfap aren't listed.
But aren't RIGHTIES supposed to be good at being fiscally responsible?
We have heard this before...but that's all that RIGHTIES do is lead us into deficit and debt, so LEFTIES and everyone else expect it now.
Strutz @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:33 am
Maxine - Politics.JPG
Gunnair @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:54 am
Strutz Strutz:
Maxine - Politics.JPG
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
Count_Lothian @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:09 pm
smorgdonkey smorgdonkey:
I think the hostility is a way of dismissing things rather than considering things. React quickly with a "AWWW not this LEFTY BS again!!" and it gives the impression that the 'righty' has heard it before and considered it before. It's a way of deflecting.
Deflect this:
After the (RIGHTY) Mulroney was done in 1993 the Conservatives (righties) chalked up a $38 Billion deficit. By 2006, under non-conservative (LEFTY) leadership, this had been turned around into a $16 Billion surplus. Four years later, and Harper's Conservatives (RIGHTY) had returned Canada to a record $56 Billion deficit. Another $16 Billion last quarter...good thing all of the numbers in the 4 year gfap aren't listed.
But aren't RIGHTIES supposed to be good at being fiscally responsible?
We have heard this before...but that's all that RIGHTIES do is lead us into deficit and debt, so LEFTIES and everyone else expect it now.
Deflect this:
After the (RIGHTY) Mulroney was done in 1993 the Conservatives (righties) chalked up a $38 Billion deficit. By 2006, under non-conservative (LEFTY) leadership, this had been turned around into a $16 Billion surplus. Four years later, and Harper's Conservatives (RIGHTY) had returned Canada to a record $56 Billion deficit. Another $16 Billion last quarter...good thing all of the numbers in the 4 year gfap aren't listed.
But aren't RIGHTIES supposed to be good at being fiscally responsible?
We have heard this before...but that's all that RIGHTIES do is lead us into deficit and debt, so LEFTIES and everyone else expect it now.
shhhhh
they were in deficit by August of 2008.
during election they failed to tell everyone that.
oh yeah i went through all this before…
never did get the final rebuttal.
the Liberals always have and always will have the best fiscal team
The conservatives always have and always will have the best spin doctors.
FieryVulpine @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:43 pm
smorgdonkey smorgdonkey:
I think the hostility is a way of dismissing things rather than considering things. React quickly with a "AWWW not this LEFTY BS again!!" and it gives the impression that the 'righty' has heard it before and considered it before. It's a way of deflecting.
Deflect this:
After the (RIGHTY) Mulroney was done in 1993 the Conservatives (righties) chalked up a $38 Billion deficit. By 2006, under non-conservative (LEFTY) leadership, this had been turned around into a $16 Billion surplus. Four years later, and Harper's Conservatives (RIGHTY) had returned Canada to a record $56 Billion deficit. Another $16 Billion last quarter...good thing all of the numbers in the 4 year gfap aren't listed.
But aren't RIGHTIES supposed to be good at being fiscally responsible?
We have heard this before...but that's all that RIGHTIES do is lead us into deficit and debt, so LEFTIES and everyone else expect it now.
Deflect this:
After the (RIGHTY) Mulroney was done in 1993 the Conservatives (righties) chalked up a $38 Billion deficit. By 2006, under non-conservative (LEFTY) leadership, this had been turned around into a $16 Billion surplus. Four years later, and Harper's Conservatives (RIGHTY) had returned Canada to a record $56 Billion deficit. Another $16 Billion last quarter...good thing all of the numbers in the 4 year gfap aren't listed.
But aren't RIGHTIES supposed to be good at being fiscally responsible?
We have heard this before...but that's all that RIGHTIES do is lead us into deficit and debt, so LEFTIES and everyone else expect it now.
I must admit I am skeptical of that claim without citation. Unless that is the culminated surpluses from the nineties to 2006.
As for the Conservative's deficit spending, is that not what the opposition wanted back in 2008? Enough to attempt to create a coalition that ultimately crumbled?
Count_Lothian Count_Lothian:
the Liberals always have and always will have the best fiscal team
The conservatives always have and always will have the best spin doctors.
The conservatives always have and always will have the best spin doctors.
That was when Paul Martin was in Cabinet and he is now retired from politics. With Justin Trudeau, I seriously doubt the man or his advisers are capable of balancing a budget.
OnTheIce @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:35 pm
Count_Lothian Count_Lothian:
shhhhh
they were in deficit by August of 2008.
during election they failed to tell everyone that.
oh yeah i went through all this before…
never did get the final rebuttal.
the Liberals always have and always will have the best fiscal team
The conservatives always have and always will have the best spin doctors.
If governments and politicians could predict recessions and economic collapses, budgets would always run in the black and Countries would have zero debt.
The Liberals are far from the best fiscal team. The majority of PM's leave office with the Canadian debt higher than when they started. That goes for both Liberals and Conservatives.
They all suck.
BartSimpson @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:49 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
They all suck.
Here, here.
Jabberwalker @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:52 pm
They all suck up cash like a Hoover, then give it back to us, claiming that it is a "gift" from their specific party to us.
Public_Domain @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:01 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
They all suck.
Would you like a pamphlet?
smorgdonkey @ Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:26 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
They all suck.
Ok, ok...
...but the LEFTIES actually sucked a lot less since I got to be of voting age in 1985.