[QUOTE=Ecarnacion;25650040]Socialist spending is unsustainable, so this is at least longer-term than that. Look at the country that have had fiscal economic policies, and see how developed and advanced they are. The United States for most of it's history, Switzerland for the past century; show me one fiscally left-wing country that isn't on the verge of collapse or has serious rights abuses.[/QUOTE]
Copy paste posts? LOL NO.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25650071]Copy paste posts? LOL NO.[/QUOTE]
Clearly, it's of course impossible to be using the wrong tab.
[QUOTE=Ecarnacion;25650179]Clearly, it's of course impossible to be using the wrong tab.[/QUOTE]
And of course it's not the part that matters that you reply to ever.
You can't prove that because it's not true, government styles of all types are lasting quite well around the world, it's not a defacto thing. Somethings work some places.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;25650218]And of course it's not the part that matters that you reply to ever.
You can't prove that because it's not true, government styles of all types are lasting quite well around the world, it's not a defacto thing. Somethings work some places.[/QUOTE]
The only 3 governments that use fiscally left-wing policies that ever got large were the Nazis, the USSR, and China. The Nazis basically annexed all the capital owned by the Jews, and used slave labour. The USSR plundered food and material from it's satellite states on a regular basis causing mass starvations, and used slave labour. China enslaved it's population, also causing mass starvations. All 3 were highly militarized and aggressive.
He wants to remove the streetcars and the bike lanes. A fucking stupid move backwards, considering it's the most friendly downtown in the country for people without cars, who form the majority of commuters.
I like Ford because he isn't full retard pants on head when it comes to bullshit "hurr ban all guns" mentality.
He actually gets how gun control should be treated.
He was the best choice when comparing it to Smitherman
[QUOTE=Ecarnacion;25650309]The only 3 governments that use fiscally left-wing policies that ever got large were the Nazis, the USSR, and China. The Nazis basically annexed all the capital owned by the Jews, and used slave labour. The USSR plundered food and material from it's satellite states on a regular basis causing mass starvations, and used slave labour. China enslaved it's population, also causing mass starvations. All 3 were highly militarized and aggressive.[/QUOTE]
Apparently "left" means half way to communism. Yeah, that's how it really is.
[QUOTE=laval;25650340]He wants to remove the streetcars and the bike lanes. A fucking stupid move backwards, considering it's the most friendly downtown in the country for people without cars, who form the majority of commuters.[/QUOTE]
Street cars are slow and break down way more than buses, their tracks and lines are also incredibly high maintenance, so he's going to replace them with more efficient buses. He also wants to contract out the supplier of the buses to whoever will give the best deal, rather then accepting the deal of a company with close ties to the government.
[QUOTE=Ecarnacion;25650309]The only 3 governments that use fiscally left-wing policies that ever got large were the Nazis, the USSR, and China. The Nazis basically annexed all the capital owned by the Jews, and used slave labour. The USSR plundered food and material from it's satellite states on a regular basis causing mass starvations, and used slave labour. China enslaved it's population, also causing mass starvations. All 3 were highly militarized and aggressive.[/QUOTE]
What about Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland?
[QUOTE=HappyBunny!!;25647969]Canada? Dumbfuck, it's in Toronto.
Calgary (where I live) got Naheed Nenshi, should've gotten McIver, who has much stronger experience.[/QUOTE]
Should have gotten Jon Lord.
At least Higgins didn't get voted in.
I would have no problem with bike lanes if they weren't trying to eliminate the car and if the lanes actually WENT SOMEWHERE! Half these fucking lanes go to the end of some street and disappear, and that fucktard Miller seemed to think that he could eliminate the car in placing them, which was a fucking retarded idea. I personally think they need either no bike lanes or a bike lane network that GOES SOMEWHERE, less dedicated streetcar lanes, more lanes for traffic (because cars aren't going anywhere, there will only be more of them), and MORE GODDAMN SUBWAYS! A subway line won't impede traffic and is also not affected by traffic. Yes, it's more expensive, but it would be better for commuters in the long run if there were more subways and less streetcars/dedicated streetcar lanes. That, and our subway system needs improvement and useful expansion anyways, it's dated by 40 years.
[QUOTE=Ecarnacion;25650385]Street cars are slow and break down way more than buses, their tracks and lines are also incredibly high maintenance, so he's going to replace them with more efficient buses. He also wants to contract out the supplier of the buses to whoever will give the best deal, rather then accepting the deal of a company with close ties to the government.[/QUOTE]
Streetcars can go just as fast as buses. I would say they're faster if only because of the dedicated right-of-ways on which some of the routes run. The new streetcars set to come out in a couple years have a much greater capacity too, since they're [url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/04/24/toronto-s-new-streetcar-sleeker-lower-longer.aspx]reeeally long[/url].
If you want to save money on transportation, cut ridiculously overfunded road building schemes. A subway line has over 3 times the capacity as does a 6-lane highway like the DVR.
This guy gets his votes from the same suburban car nuts who want the Spadina Expressway completed.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;25650406]What about Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland?[/QUOTE]
Aside from their welfare policies and extremely high taxes, Scandinavian countries are pretty fiscally conservative.
[QUOTE=Ecarnacion;25650499]Aside from their welfare policies and extremely high taxes, Scandinavian countries are pretty fiscally conservative.[/QUOTE]
denmark is a socalist atheistic country, there is nothing conservative about it
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;25650528]denmark is a socalist athiestic country there is nothing conservative about it[/QUOTE]
since when is "socalist athiestic" a political stance?
[QUOTE=Aman V;25650544]since when is "socalist athiestic" a political stance?[/QUOTE]
socalist is and athiests tend to be liberal because conservative tend to want to spread christainity
[QUOTE=Aman V;25650544]since when is "socalist athiestic" a political stance?[/QUOTE]
Socialist is a political stance, Atheistic indicates no state religion and that religion is likely a very small part of the lives of people there.
[QUOTE=Ecarnacion;25650499]Aside from their welfare policies and extremely high taxes, Scandinavian countries are pretty fiscally conservative.[/QUOTE]
oh okay, so aside from the two things that conservatives complain about the most often, they are conservatives
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;25650567]socalist is and athiests tend to be liberal because conservative tend to want to spread christainity[/QUOTE]
Fuck, please leave the thread you clearly have no clue what you are even talking about
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;25650569]Atheistic indicates no state religion and that religion is likely a very small part of the lives of people there.[/QUOTE]
the term you are looking for is "secular"
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;25650569]Socialist is a political stance, Atheistic indicates no state religion and that religion is likely a very small part of the lives of people there.[/QUOTE]
A lot of countries don't have a state religion. Doesn't mean you just tack "ATHEISTIC" onto their title. It's called secular bro.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;25650528]denmark is a socalist atheistic country, there is nothing conservative about it[/QUOTE]
According to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark is ranked 9th
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;25650528]denmark is a socalist atheistic country, there is nothing conservative about it[/QUOTE]
According to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark is ranked 9th
[editline]26th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;25650567]socalist is and athiests tend to be liberal because conservative tend to want to spread christainity[/QUOTE]
A prime example of someone who shouldn't discuss politics.
[QUOTE=Ecarnacion;25650596]According to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark is ranked 9th[/QUOTE]
They also put Canada above America.
[QUOTE=Ecarnacion;25650610]According to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark is ranked 9th[/QUOTE]
perhaps they mean that everyone is free to buy things equally because Denmark is socalist
and let me see that source
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;25650727]perhaps they mean that everyone is free to buy things equally because Denmark is socalist
and let me see that source[/QUOTE]
Do your posts make sense in your own head?
Please tell us what it is like to have a simple mind
[QUOTE=Aman V;25650745]Do your posts make sense in your own head?
Please tell us what it is like to have a simple mind[/QUOTE]
what, im just saying how denmark is definitely not big on the free market
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;25650781]what, im just saying how denmark is definitely not big on the free market[/QUOTE]
my brain is melting
[QUOTE=Aman V;25650803]my brain is melting[/QUOTE]
are you going to make a point or are you angry at something and have to let off steam with ad hominem attacks?
Wait, he won?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
