Canadian Blue

Yes, I know the NDP doesn't really think Canada needs a military that can adequately respond to national disaster, an intelligence agency to find out threats to lets say the Jewish community in Montreal, or the RCMP to ensure that people in rural areas can have law enforcement. That's why you seem to think that Canadian's money is better spent on art projects instead of border guards, or daycare for residents of Toronto instead of let's say ensuring that extremists don't bomb residents of Toronto. However I do agree, the NDP does know that their isn't a limitless supply of money. That's why they want to raise taxes on business and individuals which will merely chase said businesses and individuals out of the country. Sure we'll be mediocre, but atleast we have Young People F*cking. But let me remind you that it was the military that took out the Nazis, not a crappy film funded by the government.

Well you certainly don't speak up against those who attempt to shut debate down which makes you just as culpable. I've provided a cite and you have yet to show any concern that the pro-choice lobby now seems to believe that the right to oppose abortion should be considered hate propaganda. If you dislike the blanket statement, then perhaps you would note the quote I gave you and oppose that position which is seeking to criminalize freedom of speech in the name of human rights.

History doesn't agree with that considering the record of the Canadian Forces in the Medak Pocket, Korea, and Europe in both World Wars.

So you're not so much in favour of negotiation as you are for a total pullout with no regard for the consequences now? As for the US never being at risk, I hope you're joking. America was constantly targeted in the 90's, ever hear of the Embassy bombings, the WTC explosion, or for that matter the USS Cole incident. But lets say this, I wouldn't want to disband all of modes of defence, that is unless you believe that we should be completely defenceless if an attack or situation were to arise. I'm far more prudent than you and far more observant that the world is still somewhat dangerous.

Actually, it was in this case. Most people noted that the Governor General would have the power to allow an election, prorogue Parliament, or allow a confidence vote. That is the system and that's how it works. But it became somewhat obvious early on that this coalition really wasn't about altruism as much as many on the left liked to believe. However I think the coalition should have been allowed to go through, it would have self-destructed within a couple of months. Nobody is so foolish as to believe that the promises of conniving politicians is worth much in the House of Commons.

No, the difference is that I didn't argue we should first pullout of Afghanistan and give the Taliban the position of strength during negotiations. For NATO to pullout, let the Taliban take power, and then negotiate is idiotic at best. What would we have to negotiate about exactly if NATO pulled out, probably nothing. The NDP position back then and now is to be in a position of weakness. As well I won't be going to your side, why would I want to put the country at risk of an attack by gutting the budgets of the Canadian Forces, RCMP, and CSIS.

Yes, especially that guy who actually served in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban while you were back here in Canada typing your opinions of world affairs.

Wouldn't it be more accurate too say that their are only people who favour legal abortion and those who oppose it. You're then using langauge to demonize the otherside, after all nobody wants to be considered "anti-choice" or "anti-life." That would be suicide by semantics. But the other group are students unions who boycott pro-life groups. Not to mention the fact that Joyce Arthur a prominent pro-choice spokesperson has attacked civil libertarians for arguing that pro-life groups should be allowed to organize on campuses. So yes, I'd say it's a safe bet that many pro-choice groups want to restrict freedom of speech in Canada when it comes to abortion in the guise of "human rights." Needless to say I've been of the opinion that freedom of speech is a human right, but it's become less apparent in Canada. If we were to follow her rationale opposition to abortion would be illegal because it would be hate propaganda.

Might I also point out the Just War principle set forward by Constantine as being an example of when it's excusable to go to war. Pacifism is a dangerous ideology soley because it is willing to waver in the fact of totalitarianism and would allow men and women to be enslaved without a fight by the state.

Here's how I see it, I ask myself whether Jesus would have supported the Eugenics movement from an ethical standpoint, chances are he wouldn't have. I'll be quite honest, if I had a 12 year old daughter I wouldn't want her to have sex. I guess that makes me a bad person. However the Church I go to has counselling and groups setup for unwed mothers. Why don't you promote it, do you find something unethical about abortion, if you do what is it? Which wars in particular. The problem is that sometimes in the world people will be killed during wartime. Just look at World War 2 and how many civilians were killed on all sides, it doesn't mean we should have given up all of continental Europe to the Nazis. It's easy to sound off about how one is for nonviolence and pacifism in the safety of the west where men are more than willing to engage in acts of violence to ensure you sleep safely in your bed. By the way, often times those Muslim kids will be involved in the fighting, or perhaps killing one another depending on their tribe. Not to beat a dead horse here, but wasn't Jesus about voluntary action. Christianity is largely based around the individual and not the collective, so being loving and compassionate is an act for the individual and not the collective, correct? Doubt it, do you really think Jesus Christ would have sided with the Optimates, Populares, or Liberatores? It is if you're forcing people to be compassionate by the barrel of a gun. Christianity is largely based on the individual relation to God and not the collectives relationship with said God. Even in Acts where they describe what seems like a socialist community, said community operates as a purely voluntary institution. I'd say that the people who live like Jesus would have wanted would be Hutterites, Mennonites, and Anabaptists in general. However none of these communities believe in using the state to force people to live as they do, it would be immoral. That's why I think it's absurd to say that Jesus Christ would be a New Democrat.

Are you talking about how CF-18's were scrambled to protect our airspace. As well if you read the article you'd note that Sikorski is fiercely anti-Russian, thus putting Mackay in a positive light despite the fact he has this crazy idea that Canada's national airspace should be protected. But one thing to know about diplomacy is that you want someone who is firm, not some weak kneed individual who would bow down to any demands given by a hostile state. Reagan was able to discuss issues with Gorbachev even though Reagan called the USSR an evil empire, which it was if you ever bothered to read the Gulag Archipelago.

He did back down on the party funding. However the coalition was still going ahead. I was talking about the pro-choice lobby in particular. Yes I have, however I've also heard of people succumbing to diseases, injury, and in many cases by the hand of other human beings. Just because someone is dead it doesn't mean they no longer have any human qualities, to argue so would be foolish. Besides one does not need to believe in an almighty to be opposed to abortion, have you ever heard of Nat Hentoff? I hear that PJ O'Rourke and Geraldo Riviera faced a great deal of danger in the Persian Gulf, perhaps they should run for office. As for having a PhD, I recall Woodrow Wilson was considered the most educated President, yet he was a war monger, racist, shredded the Constitution and Bill of Rights, jailed anti-war protestors, and centralized the US government. Michael Ignatieff is somewhat similar to Harper, in that they're both extremely boring, come off as unemotional, and aren't all that populist. Yeah, I disliked Reagan too, what with his defeating of double digit inflation and malaise. But I like your point about him being tall, the only people you can trust with government power are midget NDP wrestlers who hate Ronald Reagan and like the coalition.

Apparently if you ever showed sympathy with the United States, had a "Support the Troops" magnet, or questioned the ethics of abortion, you are no different from David Irving and Ernst Zundel.

About as silly as people who state that Harper is a separatist for writing a paper telling Albertan's not to separate but to find constitutional and legal venues to become more independent of a hostile federal government. Anyone who has read Harpers history before he gave up his classical liberal principles will know that he was supportive of a federation where the provinces were granted more control over their areas of jurisdiction and the federal government would butt out. By the way it's not comparable to the separatism that is called for by Gilles Duceppe and Baker. Those two just feel entitled to other peoples money and that's about it. Yep, we should only have cordial relations with our neighbour if a Democrat's in charge. Ironically enough John McCain would have likely been better in terms of our relationship because he wasn't a protectionist and even stated that Canada and America both benefit from free trade.

Yeah, but Jesus was also pro-life which means that he would be automatically expelled from the NDP. As I've said before, if Jesus was a politician he'd likely be Dorothy Day. Anti-statist, pacifist, and a distributist.

So Eyeball you just want anti-drug groups to be banned and for the police to never mention the Charter of Rights ever again. By the way, theirs a difference between a libertarian and a pothead/paranoid conspiracy nut.

No, I have no problem with allowing people that are pro-life the ability to speak freely. I'm not really into the thought control aspect that the left preaches. As for being pro-United States, I really have no clue what that means, outside of perhaps not having a blind hatred of everything American. As for militarism, theirs a large difference between saying the military should be given the tools it requires to do a job, and treating our soldiers like sh*t as the LPC did. With the abortion debate, I hold to the maxim that those who are neutral should be sent to the hottest part of hell once they die. I'll be quite frank I find pro-choicers to be far more despicable, simply because they don't even engage in a debate. Their main goal is to use the state to shutup people who disagree with them. But their weren't many holocaust deniers, racists, or bigots, in the Canadian Alliance or the Reform Party. The holocaust deniers is fairly moot since the CPC is strongly supportive of Israel. Usually it would be isolated statements that were taken out of context by the media. However I will say this, atleast you don't see Conservatives marching under Hezbollah and Tamil Tiger flags. Now I will admit that most conservatives [small c] find holocaust deniers to be fairly despicable. The difference is that we don't think you should be able to jail people for opinions that are deemed offensive by Liberals. I don't believe the government owns a persons tongue like you and Progressive Tory do, nor do I think government bureaucrats should become the defacto thought police in Canada and attempt to punish journalists and newsmagazines for voicing a difference of opinion.

Yes, you just didn't know when it was said or in what context. Ever hear of Jean Chretien's quip about how westerners are "different types." Or for that matter pretty well every policy the Liberal from absurd gun control policies, the CWB, to ignoring Senate Elections. As well I still recall all the shreiking from the opposition about how big oil would destroy the nation. So you're saying that Alberta can't do any of these things, even though both Ontario and Quebec have similar policies. Which isn't calling for western separatism, but instead stating that Alberta should be granted some independence from Ottawa and attempt to get more clout in Ottawa. To think that this is separatism is idiotic at best. Actually, he does want Ontario's money. That's why Newfoundland has stated they should still be entitled to equalization despite being a have province. All this proves to me is that you think it's fine and dandy if Quebec [and Ontario with the OPP] have put in place all these measures, yet if Alberta does your up in arms. You do realize that even the colonies are provinces right? Listen Progressive Tory, just because some people don't want to constantly get rear ended by Ottawa it doesn't automatically make them separatists.

I'll be honest, I'm not scared by Ignatieff. I don't think he'll do that much damage to the country [because every Prime Minister seems to do some damage] however I don't think he'll be the deity that the Liberal supporters are making him out to be. By the way reading a newspaper won't give you a good idea of local issues. Just because I read the BBC, it doesn't mean I know what it's like to pay egregious taxes, live in a nanny/police state, and duck when another Islamic extremist blows up a bus while the Labour Party is making excuses for said extremists and banning politicians who criticize said extremists. That being said it's a shame Ignatieff is wasting his talents running for Prime Minister of Canada. Everyone knows that the PMO destroys what would otherwise be decent and principled individuals.

Let's have some fun PT, do the test and see where you line up. I'll even do it to show what my score is: PS: I'm not surprised to be close to Ron Paul since I'm more of a paleo-conservative/libertarian.

No, it's reactionary. Define your terms. Don't worry, I'm sure that soon enough bureaucrats will take over all of those activities. By the way this might come as a shock to you but their were plenty of people in my community who voted Conservative yet were charitable. Apparently compassion isn't restricted to filing taxes with those Christian Conservatives. No, I prefer Sleemans. My name is my nationality and then what colour my political affiliations usually lie. Is this another one of your fictitious facts. Funny that you talk about how much you respect the Charter, yet then say those who have issues with the Charter shouldn't have freedom of speech. But then again you probably don't see the irony in that.

Which wasn't when he was an MP, he served as Reform Party MP from 1993-1997. Before that he was one of the strongest voices that supported the Reform Party expanding into eastern Canada and dropping populism. Once again, research your facts. Not really, the difference is that Newfoundland feels entitled to Ontario's money, Alberta simply stated that if the Liberals were going to go out of their way to scapegoat Alberta during the election they shouldn't expect said provinces where they described individuals as holocaust deniers, racists, bigots, and xenophobes, to prop up their election promises. Just out of curiosity if you're apparently for national unity, then why do you have this odd belief that it's perfectly acceptable for the Liberals to bash western Canada during an election to pick up votes in the east. After all even Liberal MP's stated that the carbon tax was a way to shift wealth from Alberta and Saskatchewan to Ontario and Quebec.

Yes, you just abandoned pretty well every single tradition in the name of political correctness, how courageous. So what you're saying is that a conservative is just a Trudeau Liberal then, correct? By the way Edmund Burke was actually taking a position that wasn't in the mainstream at the time, all you're saying is that you will take any position that is popular. So, once again, you are not a conservative. Stop calling yourself a conservative Progressive Tory, especially since you're an advocate of handing over freedom of speech to bureaucrats, support abortion on demand, and also oppose tradition. All you've proven to me is that you never really have views that are outside of the politically correct mainsteam and will abandon your principles whenever the mainstream media tells you. I'm wondering how much more bastardized Progressive Tory can make conservatism. By her definition Joseph Stalin would be considered a conservative in Russia instead Aleksandr Solzhenytsen.

Hold on, weren't members of the Canadian Alliance called holocaust deniers, racists, and bigots, by the Liberals in 2000, or in 2004 when people were warned that the CPC would be anti-abortion and pro-US, or in 2006 when the Liberals stated that the Conservatives would have soldiers in our cities, with guns. Mind getting a cite for that. Actually it was meant to support provincial rights against a central government which has no concern for the provinces outside of Ontario and Quebec. You mean, the opposition dragged her down. After all they were the ones who started this whole mess since they can only survive off the tit of the taxpayer. Probably because most people actually knew they were separatists, something which wasn't known by the left leaning posters on this board. Actually, the firewall isn't a separatist agenda. You've obviously never actually read the document. All it states is that if the Liberals attempt to steal the wealth of western Canada to buy votes we should become more independent of the government in Ottawa.

The idea of Parliament isn't consensus, however allowing MP's more independence will allow them to take more principled stands, the exact opposite of consensus. I want a debating chamber, not an echo chamber.