posted
#5: To paraphrase a familiar slogan, "It's the War, stupid." Dropping food and supplies into potentially enemy territory is unsound tactics at best. What wer ARE doing is uncommonly humanitarian for any day and age. None of our allies (or critics) have, or likely would, do such a thing. If its not enough for the critics, they should get in their jeeps and take a few loads over themselves.
#4: Horse puckey. I already covered this. Only the suicidally naive believe that governments are (or should be) always honest and straightforward.
#3: We haven't said that the N.A. would have free reign, have we? Like we said before, 'ask the UN, it's their baby.' Like I said before, 'multiparty parliament' is probably the best way to go.
#2: Not provide any assistance? I beg to differ, there's a new round of tax cuts in the bill, too. The idea is that if the companies laying off people have money, they won't have to lay off so many people, so there won't be as great a need for personal assistance. Pretty simple. But that's Libs for you... they just LOVE to put folks on welfare.
#1: By killing everyone who uses it. By making the expense of the use of that tactic too high to pay, for those who employ it and those who support those who employ it. If the cost of bombing two United States skyscrapers is having your entire country obliterated... very few people are going to see the logic in that course of action. And they're going to want to seriously distance themselves from the people who might.
quote:But that's Libs for you... they just LOVE to put folks on welfare.
Conversely, that's Conservatives for you -- they'd rather prop up big-business and not give a rat's ass about the people displaced by it.
quote:By killing everyone who uses it.
Horseshit. If that were true, we'd be propping Ron Reagan against a wall, tying a blindfold over his eyes, and reading the firing squad. The U.S. Government has very much been guilty of "terrorism", including our actions in Afghanistan against the U.S.S.R. What you've got here is a double standard: if the U.S. does it, it's okay ... if anyone else does it, it's terrorism.
quote:If the cost of bombing two United States skyscrapers is having your entire country obliterated... very few people are going to see the logic in that course of action.
Ah, ... so it's not really "kill everyone who uses it", it's ... figure out where they're from, and blow the crap out of the country. Yes, that's logical. That'll certainly stop people from hating the West. "See, this bin Laden dude hurt the U.S. ... so the U.S. bombed me and my family -- even though we didn't do anything -- so now I'm going to over to the U.S. with some dynamite and kill some people."
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
#4: Horse puckey. I already covered this. Only the suicidally naive believe that governments are (or should be) always honest and straightforward.
It's called accountability. Liberals want accountability in their government, a government that should be always honest and straightforward. But like you said in that quote "The Government Lies to Citizens".
From that article:
.....but when it came to aiding the thousands of workers laid off, Congressman Dick Armey said that that would be contrary to "the American spirit."
Care to defend this quote? And I would not be surprised if Armey is a Conservative.
Rob: But that's Libs for you... they just LOVE to put folks on welfare.
Jeff: Conversely, that's Conservatives for you -- they'd rather prop up big-business and not give a rat's ass about the people displaced by it.
You'll love Ontario, Rob. Programs designed to help the lower class get on its feet have been eliminated. So has affordable rental housing, in which the Conservative government not only stopped present housing projects, but has backed the demolition of existing affordable housing stocks in favour of luxury Condominiums. Thus you have a shortage in rental units, and an abundance of luxury units, and more people becoming homeless on the streets. Finally, you have the government tightening welfare rules which make it appear that less people are on welfare, but in reality, there are many homeless out there who can't qualify due to these strict rules, and the problems that the Conservative Government has created.
Thank God Mike Harris is resigning. Hopefully, the next Conservative leader has a bit more common sense and compassion than his predecessor.
[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Liberals want accountability in their government
Then they should be working to make it smaller. The larger and more powerful it is, the less accountability it has.
quote: Care to defend this quote?
Do they care to substantiate it, or provide accurate context?
quote:So has affordable rental housing, in which the Conservative government not only stopped present housing projects, but has backed the demolition of existing affordable housing stocks in favour of luxury Condominiums.
Well... it's probably more cost-effective to spend money building apartments that the residents WON'T destroy within a few months of moving in, which is what's happened around here.
It's an odd coincidence that nobody ever wants to talk about... low rent attracts low-rents. I can tell you for a fact, that the 'public housing' areas down here, - that is, in the town in which I work, not necessarily everywhere, but definetely here - even though built to better standards than the apartment to which I am moving, are the most crime-ridden areas, whose residents commit the most petty theft, who destroy the surroundings at whim, and who abuse the slightest privelege or luxury given them (especially free access to the library). No wonder nobody wants them.
quote:there are many homeless out there who can't qualify due to these strict rules,
How many? I know that the last 'homeless census' revealed that there were something less than half as many homeless people as the activists claimed. I also know that many - perhaps the vast majority - of the homeless are people with (let me use the politically correct term here) "reality-dysfunction/impairment," who were 'released' from treatment facilities by Liberal programs trying to 're-integrate' them into society (While Conservatives want to keep them 'shut away.')
[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Well... it's probably more cost-effective to spend money building apartments that the residents WON'T destroy within a few months of moving in, which is what's happened around here.
It's an odd coincidence that nobody ever wants to talk about... low rent attracts low-rents. I can tell you for a fact, that the 'public housing' areas down here, - that is, in the town in which I work, not necessarily everywhere, but definetely here - even though built to better standards than the apartment to which I am moving, are the most crime-ridden areas, whose residents commit the most petty theft, who destroy the surroundings at whim, and who abuse the slightest privelege or luxury given them (especially free access to the library). No wonder nobody wants them.
Why is it that people on welfare are always depicted as the lowest of the lowest type of scum? I mean, sure, a lot of people are abusing the welfare system, but there are just as many who DO use it as a means of assistance to get on their feet again. What I find totally funny is, the people usually doing the finger pointing and talking are those who have never been there and have no idea what it's like....
-------------------- Are we having fun yet?
Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, right now, I AM eligible for 'public assistance, in so far as I make under the maximum allowable for things like rent and utility bill assistance.
But I'm not taking it, as I have found ways to reduce my spending in other areas, thus giving me enough to 'get by' decently.
Then again, I'm also intelligent enough to no be addicted to anything more potent than Hardee's Monster Burgers, and to know that anything I destroy, I have to pay for.
When people are not required to make an effort to get what they have, it's value to them decreases severely. This is why it's so 'easy' for them to destroy puclic housing.
And although I may not speak from the experience of being on welfare or 'assistance' myself, I DO speak from the experience of dealing, EVERY DAY, with people who are. And my original statements stand.
I repeat, not all the people on assistance are leeches. Some are actually in need, some are physically incapable of working, some just need short-term assistance until their conditions improve.
But that's still no excuse for theft, vandalism, incivility, and property destruction.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
