Canadian government declares war on drugs

[Ma Deuce]

Still can't see myself voting for anything else, though. I mean, we've got an epic liar running the province, can't tolerate that. NDP ruined us last time around. Green Party? I don't even want to know... I seem to remember one of their candidates in my region saying he wanted to shut down the nuclear power plant and run everything off of the wind.

Why are you even bringing the provincial election into this discussion? The provincial parties (especially the Ontario PC party) are not the same thing as their federal counterparts.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ryan, don't brag about having survived one month of first-year uni. You haven't accomplished jack shit yet.

I've said it I don't know, maybe three or four times now, Mike, but it just never seems to actually make it through whatever it is you folks . Maybe putting it at the top of my post in all caps will get the message across; I'M NOT FUCKING BRAGGING!

Anything I've said about myself so far has been purely defensive. What the hell am I supposed to do? Agree with brianeyci's random flames?

"You're a fucking idiot frosh, dickweed."

"Yessir. Complete fucking idiot dickweed, sir."

Scarborough huh, the loser campus. Well that explains a lot.

Aww, look, little fucker's jealous.

I remember my physics teacher in high school going on about that, how they should call it the University of Scarborough but they don't because they want to piggyback off the reputation of the downtown campus.

I take it that your highschool physics teacher is a certified expert on the quality of university education from campus to campus? No?

Oh. Well then why don't you offer some support for that bullshit instead of just appealing to the authority of your high school physics teacher?

What you don't seem to get is a first year frosh is no education at all, especially not less than one month in.

Right, so that early offer of admission I got is just totally meaningless, I suppose...

"Everybody I've met I've helped" what a joke.

And I suppose you're qualified to assess that.

Or not.

You sure got your head up your ass Ryan, shitting out a false dilemma with turning off the power or do nothing about the environment, and swallowing the Liberals didn't put enough money into healthcare bullshit.

Yes, yes, the Conservatives are an organized, co-ordinated axis of total evil that wants to screw us all and release demons into the world. I get the picture. Let's all go vote for the NDP.

Maybe they'll actually have a speech ready this time when they win.

Anyways, the healthcare system is still in a rather sad state. So, the Liberals increased funding. Obviously they didn't increase it *enough*, or we would have more doctors, shorter lines, and better facilities as a result.

Let's see where you are in a few months, whether you've failed Calculus and have to switch majors or drop out. From what I see so far in this and other threads looks like you're failure material.

Yeah, so my view of the world is warped, therefore I'm an idiot. I get it now, it all makes perfect sense.

- - -

Why are you even bringing the provincial election into this discussion? The provincial parties (especially the Ontario PC party) are not the same thing as their federal counterparts.

Huh? The provincial-level government needs support from the federal level, does it not? And besides that, they do still sign the guy's papers, and he hasn't done a single thing he promised to do the last time he was elected. Why he hasn't been booted out yet based on that is beyond me.

[brianeyci]

You have no idea how much bullshit you've posted do you? Her degree isn't in teaching? You obviously don't know that it's the worst kept secret in teaching that education majors are the worst teachers. Maybe you are just dumb so you didn't do well on the test. Ever think of that?

Scarborough doesn't suck? You already shot yourself in the foot mentioning the bullshit marking scheme, and it's general knowledge that the downtown campus is more prestigious and Scarborough piggy backs off its reputation. Early offer of admission? Meaningless, yes, because high school is full of morons. Not bragging? I suppose you want an objective definition of "bragging". You mention your early offer of admission as if it means something: bragging. "Everybody I've met I've helped" what egotistical, meaningless tripe.

Increasing funding? More utter bullshit: it's as if you think throwing enough money at the problem will solve it like a moron.

Yeah, so my view of the world is warped, therefore I'm an idiot. I get it now, it all makes perfect sense.

Yes, this is true. You had better accept it and change your views soon, because if you don't I predict hard times ahead. Or maybe not, because Scarborough is a bullshit school and maybe you'll breeze through it.

Why he hasn't been booted out yet based on that is beyond me.

You are one dumb fucking shit you know that. "Sign the guy's papers?" Harper could no more kick Dalton out of office than you or I could. You have no idea how our system of government works at all, do you? Booted out of office by what, some apathetic mob wanting to install John Tory as dictator? Face it, you know nothing at all. Dumb frosh.

[Adept]

Huh? The provincial-level government needs support from the federal level, does it not?

Not so much needs, as is entitled to. This is covered during each year's budget announcement, which is managed primarily by the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister. However, the ruling governmental party (being Liberal, Conservative, NDP etc.) must dole out funds to each province, regardless of the party running that province. Of course, historically, a few prime ministers have threatened to cut funding significantly for opposing parties' provinces. This, understandably, was met with so much outrage that it was shouted down many times.

And besides that, they do still sign the guy's papers, and he hasn't done a single thing he promised to do the last time he was elected

For one thing, the federal government is run by the Conservative Party and the Ontario provincial one run by the Liberal Party (for now). So, really, the prime minister can legally do squat to remove a democratically elected premier with a different ideology from power. Even if they were in the same party, party lines between the federal and provincial levels are not really adequately linked enough to allow Harper to put enough pressure on McGuinty to resign. Federal positions are elected totally independently of provincial ones, and vice versa.

Why he hasn't been booted out yet based on that is beyond me

By what legal procedure would you suggest he be booted out?

[Darth Wong]

Maybe putting it at the top of my post in all caps will get the message across; I'M NOT FUCKING BRAGGING!

Anything I've said about myself so far has been purely defensive.

Yes, and it's retarded to even use it in that context. Someone accuses you of not knowing shit, and you defend yourself by saying that you've got a whole month of first-year university under your belt. You honestly can't figure out why that's retarded?

[Ryan Thunder]

Maybe putting it at the top of my post in all caps will get the message across; I'M NOT FUCKING BRAGGING!

Anything I've said about myself so far has been purely defensive.

Yes, and it's retarded to even use it in that context. Someone accuses you of not knowing shit, and you defend yourself by saying that you've got a whole month of first-year university under your belt. You honestly can't figure out why that's retarded?

No, that would be retarded, if it was what I was doing.

Illuminatus Primus asked me what my education was. I answered his question. Immediately afterward, brianeyci started getting off on me being a "dumb frosh" and lording it over me like his shit-saturated carcass is actually worth something.

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh, and almost completely derailed the thread in the process. Good job of him.

Not to mention, motherfucker still hasn't backed up anything he said about my school.

[Darth Wong]

So says the person whose points have all been refuted, and yet who insists on maintaining the same position anyway. There's a reason you've eagerly expanded upon this thread hijack while pretending to protest it; it distracts from the points which you can't really defend.

[Ma Deuce]

Huh? The provincial-level government needs support from the federal level, does it not?

Yes, but as mentioned that has little to do with political parties, the money flows regardless of who is in power. Provincial parties are separate entities from the federal parties, and the political views of the provincal parties do vary from their federal counterparts, often considerably. The Ontario PC party, for example, is a lot more liberal than the federal Conservatives, as evidenced by the fact that their leader is pro-choice and supports gay marriage. Meanwhile, the BC Liberal party is more like a Conservative party.

Why he hasn't been booted out yet based on that is beyond me.

Because, uh...this is the first election since he was elected Premier with a majority 4 years ago? You clearly don't have a very strong grasp of how our government works.

This election was John Tory's to lose, and he's so far done a fine job doing so by pushing the unpopular religious school funding plan, which he has been forced (only too late) to back away from. Sure, it is completely unfair that Catholic schools are funded while other religious schools are not (if it were up to me, my solution would be to yank the Catholic schools from the teat and be done with the matter, but realistically that's never gonna happen), but that is an issue simply not worth spending political capital on right now. I'll probably be voting PC this election if for no other reason than to blunt McGuinty's inevitable victory. I'll also be voting "yes" on the electoral reform referendum. I'll likely vote Liberal in the next federal election, not that it'll make any difference: Jim Flaherty is simply too well entrenched in this riding to be defeated by whatever n00b candidate the Liberals are likely to throw at him.

[TheKwas]

Note: I agree with the intellectuals on this board on just about everything concerning the Conservatives. They are obviously the worst party Canada has, and likely will ever have.

Which makes it so bloody hard to even bother to vote for anyone. The only party that supports the Afghan mission, which I currently strongly support, is the same party that secretly wants to change Canada into a Christian version of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. What's a poor anti-theist to do?

[Ryan Thunder]

So says the person whose points have all been refuted, and yet who insists on maintaining the same position anyway. There's a reason you've eagerly expanded upon this thread hijack while pretending to protest it; it distracts from the points which you can't really defend.

I can see my points have been refuted. I've thought this way for a while and its difficult to get out of it. Give me some time.

[Aaron]

Note: I agree with the intellectuals on this board on just about everything concerning the Conservatives. They are obviously the worst party Canada has, and likely will ever have.

Which makes it so bloody hard to even bother to vote for anyone. The only party that supports the Afghan mission, which I currently strongly support, is the same party that secretly wants to change Canada into a Christian version of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. What's a poor anti-theist to do?

I think it's worth noting that the Liberal Party sent us into Afghanistan and into Kandahar and the opposition parties only started opposing the mission when casualties mounted, all the parties where in support of the mission prior to this. And I wouldn't be surprised come 2009 when it's time to re-evaluate the mission that we wind up staying, especially when NATO is going to basically suck our cock when their will be no replacement for us. I'm a little unsure whether the current opposition in Parliament to the mission is genuine concern for the soldiers or just a way to bring down the government.

I don't support the mission but I don't actually expect us to leave either.

[Ryan Thunder]

I'm a little unsure whether the current opposition in Parliament to the mission is genuine concern for the soldiers or just a way to bring down the government.

Regardless of how its going over there, they'll all use it as just another way to bring down the government. They'll try to compare it to the Vietnam war or Iraq or something. Then they'll call the existing government (regardless of affiliation) wannabe-Americans. Etc.

[Elaro]

I'm a little unsure whether the current opposition in Parliament to the mission is genuine concern for the soldiers or just a way to bring down the government.

Does seem like it, dunnit? Then again, that does seem to be the Opposition's job.

Back slightly on-topic: I hope this will drive home to people that the Conservatives are of the social kind, and that, I hope, will drive them out of office.

[CmdrWilkens]

So says the person whose points have all been refuted, and yet who insists on maintaining the same position anyway. There's a reason you've eagerly expanded upon this thread hijack while pretending to protest it; it distracts from the points which you can't really defend.

I can see my points have been refuted. I've thought this way for a while and its difficult to get out of it. Give me some time.

So you are aware it is customary that when you realize your points are defeated to either acknowledge that or get out of the way, as you did not (prior to this post) do either it was quite apparent to all around that you continued to hold to those views which had been thouroughly countered which calls for derision.

[TheKwas]

I think it's worth noting that the Liberal Party sent us into Afghanistan and into Kandahar and the opposition parties only started opposing the mission when casualties mounted, all the parties where in support of the mission prior to this. And I wouldn't be surprised come 2009 when it's time to re-evaluate the mission that we wind up staying, especially when NATO is going to basically suck our cock when their will be no replacement for us. I'm a little unsure whether the current opposition in Parliament to the mission is genuine concern for the soldiers or just a way to bring down the government.

I don't support the mission but I don't actually expect us to leave either.

Considering the huge fuss the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP are making about Afghanistan, I doubt they can turn around and change their position so easily in the future, especially considering the low public support for the mission (and the fact that support for the mission is divided on partisan lines, which is even more sad). Even the Liberals would have trouble pulling off a stunt like that.

[President Sharky]

That's a funny one, considering that the national debt was around $160B when Trudeau left office and had gone up to $480B or so by the time Mulroney was done with the mess. Also of note, Mulroney was in power during the greatest economic upswing since the post WWII boom and he still managed to rack up the largest deficits in Canadian history. Your debt as a % of GDP is misleading since the GDP grew a fucking shitload during the mid to late 80's. Furthermore, Trudeau was in charge during the biggest economic slump since the depression, the words "stagflation" and "Arab oil embargo" might mean something to you.

In short, get your facts straight and get a fucking education while you're at it you retarded lying dipshit.

Chill dude. Trudeau's economic management record is one of the worst of any Canadian PM. From his introduction of price and wage controls to protectionist trade policy, he worsened the country's economic problems.

Mulroney was actually steadily cutting back the huge deficit Trudeau left him with (the largest in Canadian history in terms of % of GDP) until the 1990-1992 recession hit. And if you know anything about recessions, GDP shrinks during them. The reason the overall debt went up was because the Mulroney government had to spend billions on interest payments to service Trudeau's debt. In fact, by 1988 the Conservatives were already running an operating surplus of $2.2 billion (if you even understand what an operating surplus is), but were $29 billion in the red - a marked improvement over the $37.2 billion deficit turd Trudeau left behind) because of the $31.2 billion they had to spend on interest payments for the debt Trudeau ran up from 1970 to 1984.

The government was actually well on track to eliminating the deficit during the 1980s boom, until the 1990-1992 recession (one of the longest recessions in memory) forced the government deeper into deficit. And you didn't address the fact that it was the introduction of the market-efficient GST and free trade policy that allowed Canada's economy and government revenues to grow fast enough to eliminate the deficit in the late 1990s.

Trudeau had no plan to deal with his deficit, and was content to fiddle around with the constitution while Rome burned.

[aerius]

Mulroney was actually steadily cutting back the huge deficit Trudeau left him with (the largest in Canadian history in terms of % of GDP) until the 1990-1992 recession hit. And if you know anything about recessions, GDP shrinks during them. The reason the overall debt went up was because the Mulroney government had to spend billions on interest payments to service Trudeau's debt. In fact, by 1988 the Conservatives were already running an operating surplus of $2.2 billion (if you even understand what an operating surplus is), but were $29 billion in the red - a marked improvement over the $37.2 billion deficit turd Trudeau left behind) because of the $31.2 billion they had to spend on interest payments for the debt Trudeau ran up from 1970 to 1984.

The government was actually well on track to eliminating the deficit during the 1980s boom, until the 1990-1992 recession (one of the longest recessions in memory) forced the government deeper into deficit. And you didn't address the fact that it was the introduction of the market-efficient GST and free trade policy that allowed Canada's economy and government revenues to grow fast enough to eliminate the deficit in the late 1990s.

Lies, lies, and more lies. From here you can see the annual deficit or surplus going back to 1948. For one thing, Trudeau never left behind a $37B deficit as you claim. Second, the Mulroney government was never "on track" to eliminate the deficit during the 80's boom as the deficit was actually growing during the latter half of boom, note that the deficit grew in '88 & '89. Finally, the early 90's recession was a minor hiccup compared to the effects of the '73 Arab oil embargo and the energy crisis of '79 & '80 due to the Iran-Iraq war. Stagflation & high unemployment as a result of the oil shortages started in the mid 70's and lasted well into the 80's. Of course, you wouldn't know that since you're a fucking dumbass.

[Ma Deuce]

I hope this will drive home to people that the Conservatives are of the social kind, and that, I hope, will drive them out of office.

You think people don't know that? Don't you think gay marriage would have given them a clue? No, they know full well the Conservatives are the socially conservative variety.

And with Stephane Dion leading the Liberal party, a Conservative victory next election is almost guaranteed. Better hope it's not a majority they win next time, and you better also hope Dion has the integrity to step down after being defeated (or if not, is forced to by the rest of his party).

[TheKwas]

All this talk about Dion's leadership seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

[President Sharky]

Lies, lies, and more lies. From here you can see the annual deficit or surplus going back to 1948. For one thing, Trudeau never left behind a $37B deficit as you claim. Second, the Mulroney government was never "on track" to eliminate the deficit during the 80's boom as the deficit was actually growing during the latter half of boom, note that the deficit grew in '88 & '89. Finally, the early 90's recession was a minor hiccup compared to the effects of the '73 Arab oil embargo and the energy crisis of '79 & '80 due to the Iran-Iraq war. Stagflation & high unemployment as a result of the oil shortages started in the mid 70's and lasted well into the 80's. Of course, you wouldn't know that since you're a fucking dumbass.

Your source is a steaming pile of bullshit, you turd-eating idiot. My numbers all come from the fucking official website of the government of Canada website. You know, the official numbers in Canadian dollars. Not some bullshit random source that lists things in your favour. You can clearly see the deficit going down during the early Mulroney years, until the recession hits. And since you probably make a habit of being ass-raped by horses, you failed in the realm of research, since one of the top priorities of the government during Mulroney's first term was deficit reduction. And they managed to trim $10 billion off of it until another recession hit.

Not only this, but your prehistoric brainpower seems unable to process the very idea that Canada performed so terribly through the crises of the 1970s and 80s because Trudeau was a fucking douchebag when it came to the economy. Perhaps explaining why he had to change his Minister of Finance every two years, since each was more incompetent than the last.

Not only this, but you still ignore my point that the deficit as a percentage of GDP was cut from nearly 8.3% to 5.3% by Mulroney. And it was actually at 4.4% before the recession. You also fail to address both the benefits from free trade and the GST (as well as the rest of Mulroney's tax reform initiatives) that allowed the government to efficiently reduce spending and churn out surpluses in the late 1990s. But you're probably too busy sucking Stephane Dion's tiny cock to notice.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Econstat's IMF figures are bullshit random stats?

[aerius]

Your source is a steaming pile of bullshit, you turd-eating idiot. My numbers all come from the fucking official website of the government of Canada website. You know, the official numbers in Canadian dollars. Not some bullshit random source that lists things in your favour. You can clearly see the deficit going down during the early Mulroney years, until the recession hits. And since you probably make a habit of being ass-raped by horses, you failed in the realm of research, since one of the top priorities of the government during Mulroney's first term was deficit reduction. And they managed to trim $10 billion off of it until another recession hit.

Fine, we'll go by the official government numbers. Even then the best he could do was level off the annual deficit at $29B or so, with one year at $28B. And this during the greatest economic boom since your parents were born. From '87 to '90 he failed, let me put that in capitals for you, FAILED to put a downward trend in the deficit. During that time, total revenue grew $29B, debt service payments grew $13B, and with all that extra money he still couldn't drop the deficit. Taking 5 years to knock $9B & change off the deficit during the greatest economic boom since the post WWII era is truly a great accomplishment.

Chretien's Liberals went from a $38B deficit to a $3B surplus in that same amount of time.

Not only this, but your prehistoric brainpower seems unable to process the very idea that Canada performed so terribly through the crises of the 1970s and 80s because Trudeau was a fucking douchebag when it came to the economy. Perhaps explaining why he had to change his Minister of Finance every two years, since each was more incompetent than the last.

Learn your fucking history you stupid shit. Trudeau wasn't exactly a financial genius, but the fact remains that the recession and stagflation caused by the Arab oil embargo of '73 and Iran & Iraq's oil getting taken off the market when they went to war in 1980 would've fucked over all but the best run government finances. Granted, they don't cover this in high school history class so I'm not surprised you don't know anything about it.

Not only this, but you still ignore my point that the deficit as a percentage of GDP was cut from nearly 8.3% to 5.3% by Mulroney. And it was actually at 4.4% before the recession.

It's a stat which doesn't mean that much by itself. You need to look at why it's going down, whether it's from increased GDP, actual deficit reductions, or both. Not that I expect an idiot like you to know that.

You also fail to address both the benefits from free trade and the GST (as well as the rest of Mulroney's tax reform initiatives) that allowed the government to efficiently reduce spending and churn out surpluses in the late 1990s.

You've been jerking off to Mulroney's Ogilvy-Renault bio page again haven't you?