Figleaf

I'll try to be clear. There are very few possible reasons someone would support the malformed and mistaken Conservative party: -ignorance, -stupidity, and/or -perceived self-interest. Persons in the first and third categories may or may not be stupid. Hmm, if only you could start up some camps, eh, Figleaf, call them uhm, "reeducation centres" so that those evil conservatives could be convinced of the wrongness of their ways and punished for their immorality. That is where your type of thinking leads. Rather it is where a person of your attitude sees it leading. I certainly would not see it leading there.

Yeah. That'd keep those crumby noobs from cluttering your precious forum.

IMO posters are contributing by posting.

Phew! For a second there I thought you meant Olmert was trying to kick Russian Jews out of Israel!

How about the same justification they used for taking out Saddam's nuclear facilities back in the eighties. Blow up the nutbar's weapons before he has a chance to use them on you. Okay. I should have said: "On what possible VALID justification?"

That's no reason to accuse us of behaving out of ignorance or stupidity. If you do something without good reasons, what other explanation would you think I can put on it?

this once was an interesting exchange, but since the admin has chosen to act in a way that alienates bona fide participants I have removed it

Customs Border Services Agency. Who do they need to shoot, no one. Why do police and conservation officers carry firearms, for protection. Border Guards have had to flee their posts due to the fact they had no weapons. As well CBSA employees may be in situations were they are dealing with people who have firearms. Naturally, I'm willing to re-evaluate my assessment on that point if necessary ... can you refer me to specifics that would allow me to do so? They don't deter crime, I agree with that. However if somebody commits a violent crime then they should be put in jail indefinitely after the third crime. If it doesn't deter crime, why would we want to incur such expense for every criminal who commits a petty offence after a couple of major ones? I certainly think repeat criminals should be given stiffer sentences, but making an inflexible formula is not sensible. The problem with the three strikes law is that it captures cases that don't fit the type you describe above. It will include people who rob two liquor stores in their twenties and then when they're fifty they kite a cheque. It's just not sensible to keep that person in jail at public expense for 20-40 years. Introducing a term limit for sentence, and appointing senators from provinces which democratically elect them. Baby steps at best, but at least some movement on the issue. It's not wise to elect senators until we can reform the whole system because if elected they gain authority which without proper reform we should not want them to have. A stupid alternative. If we are concerned about our population growth we will have to come to terms with making childbearing more attractive. If some parents want to opt out of the daycare provided, a rebate for their children would level that problem. Not really, I looked at the policies of each party and decided Conservative was the best option and thats how I voted. Okay, I believe you tried to do your best, but I also believe you made the wrong choice, probably by not taking proper information into account (i.e. it was a choice made through ignorance of important factors, no special offense intended). We all have our opinions. Then, presumably my argument is actually correct, unless you are exempting the support of Conservatives from the category of 'most people'. They are ceasing to be thoughtless and NOT voting Republican. That fits my meaning, I think. Yes. Some have good reasons, some not. Those who are supporting the conservative side don't have good reasons IMO.

the "afore-mentioned" "indvidual dishonesties and unprincipled compromises" are why the Liberals lost in January and why the deserve to be out of Government for an extended period. (i.e. more than two years.) To the first part, yes. They lost by through their troubles, not through the clear superiority of their opponents. To the second part, perhaps. It depends on how well they have addressed the aforementioned troubles.

The civilized nature of Canada is due to the people living here. Our prosperity is due to our natural resources. The Liberal Party is wrong to take credit for either. The orderly society is due to good government, selected by the (usual) sagacity of the people. The prosperity is due to sound economic policies, admittedly assisted by a good resource base. That's not to say we can't do better, of course.

But nobody who is intelligent and thinking of the best interest of Canadians could vote Conservative. You should read more carefully. I just said: I refer to the act/choice, not the person. But to answer what I think you must really mean (for the umpteenth time now), there are only three (or four if you count 'thoughtless') reasons that explain voting for the Conservatives: it's either an act of ignorance, stupidity or perceived self-interest. Would you like me to repeat that again? My arrogance? That sound like a bit of a personal attack. But don't worry, I won't tell on you. Will you remember this comment when the Liberals win the next election I wonder?

Yup. Harper still got elected after the Grewal affair. I refer you to my analysis of the reasons people would vote Conservative on another thread. Are you lying or are you simply forgetful? The Liberal party never admitted such a thing and was not found to have done such a thing.

Wow. So Canadians who vote Conservative are necessarily arrogant, stupid or behaving from perceived self-interest. 'Ignorant', not 'arrogant'. But let's be precise. Supporting the Conservatives is ignorant, stupid or done out of perceived self-interest. The people doing it may be merely having an off day and not be those things on an ongoing basis. I refer to the act/choice, not the person.

The problem with the Grewal case is that it appears that the Conservative leadership allowed him to run with a story they knew was not true. Typical.

I can't believe I wasted time communicating with a creature of the likes of 'RickiBobbi'. WTF was the matter with me?

[quote name='Canadian Blue No more time wasted posting!

The Liberal Party is what political scientists call a "brokerage" party. Other examples include Italy's Christian Democrats and India's Congress I. Many democracies start out with them (yes, I know Canada nominally started with the Conservatives in power) and then those parties split or die. A "brokerage party" is one that purports to be a "natural governing party" or "all things to all people". Canada has long since lost its need of training wheels. It should have two parties, the CPC and the NDP. Exclusion? Or boycott? Call them what you like, the Liberal party is primarily a pragmatic organization dedicated to securing the power to govern. This is it's strength. It assesses what the most people will find to be the best policy positions and it pursues them regardless of ideology. The result is usually pretty good government, despite the personal hobbyhorses, individual dishonesties, and unprincipled compromises along the way. BTW, the 'natural governing party' is not something the Liberal party claimed (though it must please them), it is a description people applied to them.

I'm not sure how you conclude that. Iggy would be a poor choice, Rae has his baggage, Volpe is like plague, and Finlay has too little profile. But the other candidates seem like credible contenders against Harper. Frankly I don't think Iggy will win. His mealy mouthed recantation of his support for Bush's Iraq crime earned him nothing. What reform do you think is needed and why can't they do it without Iggy? Dion's firm line with sovereigntists will help him in ROC. What makes you say that?

blah

I do have an answer, and you know what it is. I'm just playing the game you started. Nah. I don't believe you. Okay.

So your view of the truth is the only one that counts? My view of the truth is the only one I believe. Don't forget the possibility of "perceived self-interest". SOME Liberals stole money. They were no longer in office. Ergo this is a faulty basis for objecting to the Liberal party. That doesn't provide a reason to object to the Liberals now, since Dithers is gone. Anyway, you could pick another, better party to support than the Conservatives and still not support the Liberals. It sounds like you are coming to the point of admitting that you support the Conservatives merely by default -- the best you can see among a bad bunch. If so, you probably fall into my first category, since there are numerous parties to throw your vote behind. However, based on your other posts, I think your support for the Conservatives is more active than that. I forget what those priorities were, so I can't analyse them for you. ...OR based on perceived self-interested. I can't give you an answer on that yet, but they must be one of the three.

I applaud you on switching to the classic schoolyard "I know you are but what am I" defence. Bravo! This allows me an opportunity to say again: As good as most of yours, amigo.

I do have an answer, and you know what it is. I'm just playing the game you started.

Losing the debate!?? It's the Conservative supporters who are making up ridiculous, hopelessly unbelievable interpretations of Mackay's comment in order to give threadbare cover to his weaseling. No-one with a shred of independence could possibly fall into your interpretation.

Give me some evidence in support of that contention, please. That's an absurd construction of the exchange. Don't you knee-jerking Cons understand that such convolutions merely reflect as badly on your honesty as they do on Mackay's?