JerrySeinfeld

Maybe, but with the exception of some of the hugely annoying (giving the rest of us a bad name) conservative commentators you named above, I would argue most conservatives don't see themselves as "better" or "elitist". Rather many of us see ourselves as people watching the floodwaters rise around our homestead. New "progressivism" is everywhere. People want to embrace everything BUT the values that built our country. Which we find strange, because the rest of the world is pretty much a cesspool compared to the Anglo world. The rest of the world is "worried" about globalization, as in... McDonalds on the Champs Elysee (heaven forbid!). We're worried about globalisation too reverse globalization...as in burqas at the mall and mandatory gender-specific swim classes to appease mulsims in suburban Denver, or a hardcore version or islam, hot for decapitation, setting up down the block, or an Australian police handbook instructing officers to ignore wife-beating Muslim men on the grounds of "cultural sensitivity", or a 60-year sentence handed down to a group of young Lebanese men in Australia who gang raped a girl and, while diong so announced that she was about to be - and I quote - "f*cked leb style" - a 60 year sentence greeted by the Muslim community with outrage and protest. These things are actually happening. We see this as an erosion. We believe that there are "good" values and "bad" ones. That acceptance for the sake of acceptance, tolerance for the sake of tolerance, as a goal in and of itself, can be dangerous if it is blind to these erosions. That's not elitism in my view. That's just knowing the difference between right and wrong. We, as conservatives, see the fundamental problem and danger with the left as "moral relativism" or "moral equivalency" - ie. no one is wrong, there are just different points of view. This lack of ability to make a judgement on evil acts is at the root of our criticism of the left - and it is not elitist in our view, it's just not being afraid to say "you are wrong".

The NDP is on such a different - lower - level of sophistication... when it comes to advertising, communication, understanding the public, understanding economics, and people's hot buttons, connecting with people emotionally, etc. The NDP is sad. Just look at that ad. That the ridiculous NDP's attempt at an "attack ad". It would be worth criticizing if it wasn't so freakin funny. I think I speak for everyone in Canada when I say "hahahahahahahahahahahahaha". They have always been and will always be only one thing: A marginal player and a voice for the poor and lazy.

Hmm. I'd be interested to see how that was measured. Is that counting private sources (of which the US has an abundance), or only government aid (of which the US would have comparitively less than many socialist countries).

That's the most common misconception I hear from the left: how can YOU call ME elitist? You're rich! Let me explain. I'm not being condescending here. I truly think leftists don't understand, so this is a genuine attempt at understanding. Elitism, as it's used by most conservatives, and myself, is not used in the monetary sense. Many left wingers are obsessed with the almighty dollar and need to look past personal finances for a moment. When many conservatives say the word "elitist" it refers to that person's attitudes about himself and his ideas visavis policy and politics, which is generally: "I am smarter, more educated and more well read than you about the issues, and I'm the one who is smart enough to fix the problems we all face. Listen to me - you're too dumb to figure it all out." Conservatives generally believe that money in the hands of government is money wasted, or that could be better used in private hands. They look at alot of ivory tower new york times blow hard types as people who want to run the country for them and "fix" all their problems using government "solutions". In reality, conservatives see people with the gall and delusional mindset to think "if those stupid commoners just elected me, smart, educated me, we'd have a utopia" as elitists. It really has nothing to do with money, and the irony is, many socialist government control we-can-use-your-money-better-than-you-can elitist thinker types actually don't have any real of their own money. But they're still "elitist" in their way of thinking, from a conservative perspective. Another way to look at it is the granola-eating, corn-row wearing tie-dye shirt wearing peacnik down at your local march. Because he's "making the world a better place" (in his mind) with his "activism", he automatically can believe that he is a "better person" than those stupid, uninformed schlepps down at the farm in Nebraska, who actually work for a living. That's another example of an "elitist" who actually doesn't have any money.

What the heck are you talking about? Where to begin. Well, first let's discuss your comment about being a "big enough nation to help others". OK, the ASIAN TSUNAMI. WHo was there FIRST, UNILATERALLY with aricraft carriers full of food, water and supplies, while the UN clusterfuck dillydallied around with bureaucrats pissing about who should do what and where for DAYS? That's right, the USA. Who gives more money than any other nation in the world to starving nations in need? That's right, the USA. Who's citizens give more to charity per capita than any other nation in the world? That's right, the USA. Saddam Hussein was a murderous, fasict dictator who, among other things, killed 5,000 of his own people using chemical gas in Halabja. Under UN resolution 1441 specifically stated: That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions. What good is a united nations resolution with no teeth? Not enforcing such a resolution says to thug states everywhere: do whatever you want, we can't stop you! The US chose to unilaterally enforce this resolution. And to free the Iraqi people from a murderous, brutal fascist dictator. Oh, and in terms of killing people, that's what you usually do when you're at war with your enemy: kill them. It's called war, which they're winning, by the way.

Asking for balanced reporting from a taxpayer funded news agency is "crude and transparent"? Identity politics as an overt, official party doctrine isn't? Sounds like chimp calculus to me.

Is the election in the USA more interestign because it's actually a contest of ideas? People in the USA aren't afraid to voice their conservatism, unlike here in Canada where, outside of ALberta you'll be verbally lynched for expressing views outside of the left wing doctrine. All of this makes the electoral politics compelling in the USA, whereas in Canada it's a boring as watching paint dry. Why? I read a column basically saying this: Really, in Canada every party is peddling the same bullshit. Whereas in the USA there is a clear choice whereas in Canada, there is some eery "assumed" direction the country is already going (long ago decided upon by Trudeau and his ilk) - for example enviro-naziism, wealth transfer, universal health care etc., and it's a doctrine all the parties must bow to. So whether you're a liberal or a conseravtive or a NDP, you all tout your priority is to "preserve our universal health care system, fight to save the trees and vow to redistribute wealth so that all provinces are roughly equal, suck up to first nations people with more money, swallow Buzz Hargrove's bs etc." That's why our election is bullshit and the american one is fun and interesting to watch. Because we've all long ago resigned ourselves to our fate as a socialist mecca ruled by Toronto and Montreal lawyers, professors and CBC reporters, whereas the states is a clear battle of ideological differnces where large chunks of the country refuse to be told what to do by ivory tower left wing cesspools (like harvard or columbia) and media know-it-alls. Agree? Are you bored too? Will the real conservatives please stand up?

I read a column basically saying this: Really, in Canada every party is peddling the same bullshit. Whereas in the USA there is a clear choice whereas in Canada, there is some eery "assumed" direction the country is already going (long ago decided upon by Trudeau and his ilk) - for example environaziism, wealth transfer, universal health care etc., and it's a doctrine all the parties must bow to. So whether you're a liberal or a conseravtive or a NDP, you all tout your priority is to "preserve our universal health care system, fight to save the trees and vow to redistribute wealth so that all provinces are roughly equal, suck up to first nations people with more money, swallow Buzz Hargrove's bs etc." That's why our election is bullshit and the american one is fun and interesting to watch. Because we've all long ago resigned ourselves to our fate as a socialist mecca ruled by Toronto and Montreal lawyers, professors and CBC reporters, whereas the states is a clear battle of ideological differnces where large chunks of the country refuse to be told what to do by ivory tower left wing cesspools (like harvard or columbia) and media know-it-alls.

That's the first sign of a confident nation.

It's obviously you who's having a hard time understanding the concept. Certainly most party politics is ideological and carries with it a certain "us versus them" attitude. The question is whether you dabble in it on a refined subtle basis from time to time, or on a (to use your word) CRASS basis. Given your level of - and ability during - discourse, let me exlpain. From "dictionary.com": Crass: 1. without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity Identity politics as an end game, such as overtly expressing identity politics in your party's position statement (example: having an equal representation of men and women in the house of commons), as per the NDP, is crass. Please tell me where any conservative party has overtly used identity politics in it's official party policy, as has the NDP in such a crass fashion. Crass. Your ass is crass. haha

You can stop there. You're from Toronto. You have a delusional CBC forcefed view of the world. nuff said. I'm still waiting for someone to define the "canadian identity".... the REAL false premise By the way, I don't care what your citizenship is. If you fight for the other side in a war, you don't deserve shit. You're a traitor. The Khadr example is an excellent microcosm of Canada. Heck, as a Canadian citizen when the draft card arrives in the mail, just check "Canada" or "Enemy" according to taste. (stole that last part from steyn haha). This is what's wrong with our country. We hate ourselves so much, we'd rather accord rights to someone who committed treason than win a war. The guy was fighting to kill and defeat Canada, and now wants to assert his CITIZENSHIP? what a fucking joke. but I'm still waiting for someone to define the "canadian identity"....

No. I'm not talking about emulating their practices. However, theirs (and most other countries in the world, save for a half dozen or so in western europe and north america) is a society with confidence and pride in what THEY believe in, even over and above other cultures. If the saudis (and most other nations) can walk around, confident and proud of the bullshit midievil crap they practice, couldn't Canada at least stop bashing ourselves and insisting to eachother that we bend over backwards to "understand" backward-ass traditions of other cultures (a hijab or burqa wuold be good examples), and instead gain some of our own cultural confidence? How is it that our society takes pride in making fun of cowboys or rednecks, and simultaneously cow tow and tippy toe around some chick in a full burqa? Given the choice between the two, certainly a chick in a sheet is the more comedic.

False premise? Let's dig into it shall we? An official policy of multiculturalism. Essentially this means we believe in everything. Which is tantamount to believing in nothing. Turbans on RCMP officers? heck why not! Ontario government spousal benefits for polygamists? hey ok!! Banning cartoons, books and speech because some cultures find them "offensive"? No problem! Defending the rights of a traitor who fought on the enemy's side of the Afghan war? SURE! Using taxpayer money to send planes to Lebanon to resuce "Canadian citizens" who support hezbollah, only to see them return back HOME (Lebanon) once their Canadian passport of convenience had served it's purpose? A-OK!!! It was once said that Canada is the world's biggest hotel. Look around. What is Canada? What is our identity? Please. I would love to hear your reply to this. I ask you, would you even THINK to move to india, join the police force and then demand that they change their uniforms for you? As Mark Steyn once said, multiculturalism is a UNI-cultural phenomenon - it only occurs here. You can't go to Saudi Arabia and be multicultural - they'll cut your head off or hang you. The United States is the last of the western countries to actually be poud of who they are and what they believe in - their identity. The rest of western europe and Canada are stuck in a self hating, self blaming vortex of eagerness to give up our identity, our beliefs and our culture to anyone who asks - or demands. False premise? I'm turning the tables on you. The idea of a Canadian identity, one that we can be proud of, is the false premise. I defy you to prove otherwise.

Rightists don't want to ban gay pride parades. Some of us simply object to the term "marriage" being used to describe a union between two homos. That's about the extent of it.

How can you respect a nation that has no self identity, no self respect. A nation that considers it more important to adapt to immigrants than the other way around. That is the starting point.

It certainly takes them in that direction. Good post.

Wow. Yet another liberal obsession with identity politics? Golly.

Don't look now but you're making the case against Obama. See above reply, but substitute "down home" credentials for "no" credentials.

Hint: No matter who you vote for, Palin has already won.

A nobody from nowhere? So is Obama. I love Palin's line: "Here's a guy who has written TWO memoirs and not a sinlge major piece of legislation." By the way, don't look now but...if that's their strategy, it's working.

The very same. I would love to see a Republican utter this choice phrase about a Democrat woman on "The View" and escape alive. bwaaaaahahahaa. annnd (drum roll please), the Obama-esque, elitist "I'm smarter than everyone else" bullshit arrives right on cue.

Nice try. Now for a dose of reality: The NDP's position is to ultimately have an equal make up of men and women in the house of commons. How's that for crass?

All I can say is I love watching the left squirm when identity politics is used against THEM for a change. Booo hooo! They called me a sexist!!! Are the republicans unfairlu shutting down debate by claiming to be "offended" by "sexist" comments? Probably. But heck, 3 decades of liberals doing it to the republicans warrants at least one or two jabs in the opposite dircetion. MWAAAA!

Cute. However the Republicans have done a stellar job at neutralizing the Obama star factor by nominating Palin. The very fact that the Democrats have, in their infinite wisdom, actually taken the Palin bait on the "experience" debate, all the while turning the spotlight on their own Candidate's weak credentials (and he's at the TOP of their ticket) speaks volumes of their (and your) stupidity. Say what you want about Palin, the nomination has so far been stroke of political genius by McCain.

Well, McCain is a war veteran. Obama is a....wait, what is he again? Awe sour grapes! How sweet (sic). If Bush is so stupid, just think how stupid the Dems would have to be to keep losing elections to him! mwaaahh!. By the way, DOGGY, besides your one line cynical BS criticizing other viewpoints, do you actually ever posit your own thoughts on here? Cheers!