takeanumber

I'm pointing out the double standards in conservative thought...and I'm very serious about the double standards. It is perfectly possible to be against both the Liberal and Conservative parties. Being critical of conservative thought by no means implies that one is a Liberal. Takers?

You don't know who I vote for, and you clearly meant that as an insult. I have never denegrated you. You're free to attack my opinions: in fact I prefer it. I'd really prefer it if people on these boards would attack the content of the statements as opposed to blanket dismissals of the entire statement merely because you don't like how they read. That goes for the right, left, and centre. ------------ Reagan: Does character matter? Resolve the inherent tension between the conservative desire to impose their religion/morality/traditions on everybody else, and the opposite conservative desire to free everybody from regulation. That is, the conservative double standard of simultaneous social regulation and economic deregulation. Then resolve the inherent contradiction in economic deregulation between urban and rural, in that rural areas are to get more pork, whereas the urban areas will continue to get screwed. Then I want you to resolve the most tricky of the contradictions: the simultaneous upholding and denegration of communitarian values, and the simultaneous upholding and denegration of the supremacy of the individual. If you need specific examples of these contradictions in action, I'm more than happy to provide them to you, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Finally, does Character matter? Cheers Reagan.

There's a big difference between a 'joke' and what was written in the post above.

Reagan: perhaps you could answer the points without the personal attacks. I don't attack you personally. Thanks.

I can see that the substance of what I said hasn't been attacked too much, rather, assumtions have been made about myself being a pinko, blah blah blah. And then we just head right into name calling. Fabulous. I'll address two salient points: 1. Anders: Such a spirited defense of Anders, and a wonderful rejection of the 'quality of character' arguement. For me, policies are temporal. Policies are important, and party policy is quite important. But things happen, and policies have to change. The character of the people in office matter. That's a normative statement to be sure. Go ahead and refute it. I think character matters. The way that Anders was dealt with, and moreover, the justification in calling Mandella a terrorist because he's a communist (?), well -- you'll just have to live with that. What kind of man denegrates a hero out of tit-for-tat politics? What kind of people, in a party, stand by a man who does that? As for the Liberals, they certainly tossed and distanced themselves from Hedy Fry, very quickly. Sure, it was a little bit slow, that goes to show their character. We're not talking about Liberal character are we now? So yeah, character is lacking in the Conservative party. The overarching character is meanness and double standardness. I've stated a number of double standards with respect to the role of religion, traditions, rule of law, economics, social justice, and communitarianism. The fact that nobody from the right wing on this board have attempted to resolve the contradictions just shows me that they can't...and so they do the conservative thing: deny deny deny, denegrate denegrate, denegrate. Same old, same old.

Disgusting joke. How you can laugh about Canadians supporting terrorists-- burning ppl alive? I guess your memory doesn't stretch back to 1971, does it?

3 things really made my stomach turn yesterday: 1. Harper's comments about the Liberals hoping that 2 Cons die by next week. Truly sickening. 2. The Vets Bill. Harper and Dupe both agreed to get it through. Then they pull a non-confidence vote. Disgusting. They could have at least waited to get the vets bill through. Truly disgusting. 3. Revelations at Gomery with that poor man breaking down in tears because he was threatened with physical violence. Absolutely disgusting, shocking and appauling. I think this goes way beyond the Liberal party, right back to Alfonso's family. Utterly awful. You know, the Liberals and the NDP are the only two parties who now realize that party's are now public utilities, and want to bring their parties out of the darkness and into the transparent light...moves which have been opposed by the Cons. We have to bring our parties into the 21st Century here ppl. This bullsh can't go on. ------------ Sadly, we only have a choice between a man who is trying to clean up his party-- but only to save his own skin, and man who wants to wipe his butt on the Charter. Dark days for Canada indeed.

The cons cant' work with anybody except the Bloc. They've demonstrated they can't be trusted to vote for a budget, even when they negotiated for one. (They just sat down.) So yeah, they'll have to work for the Bloc.

Also, as a side note.... Chretiens 'honesty' numbers sucked in the 1997 and 2000 elections, while Clark's was quite high. However, it's the competency numbers that are the most important. Clark scored far, far lower on competency. The question isn't about perceptions of honesty...it's about competency. It always has been. So, the question becomes, is Harper competent?

The libs regained all 10 points, and then added some in Ontario over the past 2 weeks. Which makes me question the validity of this poll...that's all. I don't think it's likely for 7 other surveys to be wrong, and have this one show such a dramatic flip.

Well Reagan, you can decry as many of them as you want as 'falacies'. You know, it's interesting that you keep on refering back to official CPC policy, but you know, an awful lot about what a party does has nothing to do with the policy in its book, but rather, the nature of its people. And in light of the Liberal scandal, I'm sure you'd agree with that statement. If not, you can tackle it somewhere else. Not many people here work with parliament on nonstop, I suspect fewer people went to the convention, and I suspect very few people indeed have had the pleasure of working in the Calgary School. I know these people, and I have had these debates with them. The fact is: they can't resolve the contradictions. Let's review: 1. Christian God. The party is still dominated by Christians, and it is out of respect to the Mormons that I refer to their God as being 'Christian', although my grandparents would be spinning in their graves. Now so what? The NDP and Libs are also dominated by Christians as well. However: here's the important difference: the NDP and Libs don't try to shove their religion down everybody's throat. The Cons...well, we all know what they were doing down at the Republican Convention. It's not a conspiracy. It's the belief that religion has a role to play in public policy debates, which, by definition, is anti-classical-liberal. Disagree? Go back and read the original works on liberalism. It's ALL about containing the evil that ensued when Religion is brought into politics. As for official Conservative policy: you wont' find it. Yet, just on Wednesday, two members of the Conservative party got up and stated anti-liberal sentiments about the expulsion of the church from the "public square". I've had the displeasure of saying "Fine, let's invite God into the room, are you ready?" and then engaging in a political debate. Christian Conservatives really don't like this when I point out that they're not following in the footsteps of Jesus, and they ought to be punished, very severely, for not doing so. There tends to be this thing with Conservatives, just in general, that it's alright for them to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe and live by, and they feel perfectly free to pick those parts and enforce their interpretation on everybody else. I have no problem with Christians who live their lives, in their own homes and communities like that. It's quite common in rural parts. That's great. Just don't be going out and pushing those beliefs and certainly don't be pushing their, frankly, heretical interpretations on everybody else. This contradiction is at the heart of the Conservative Party of Canada. Now, go ahead and tackle it, Reagan. -------------- 2. Refer to my previous post. There's a tendency to think of the old days as being good. What they leave out are all the horrendous things we did, and ignore the progress we've made under the Charter. These sentiments are expressed on nearly a daily basis by Conservative MPs in the House. These sentiments are expressed on a semester basis by the Calgary School. --------- 3. The contradiction stands. I believe Reagan himself demonstrated this form of doublethink best. -------- 4. It's funny, you'd think that the NDP and the Cons would have nothing in common, but when it comes to pork for the farmers, and protection of 'supply management', they're all for it. The exeption being two or three MP's from Calgary. ------------- 5. Seatbelt laws are still blatantly disregarded in most parts of Rural Alberta and interior BC. It's pure hippocracy to be all about the 'law and order', like these types are, and then to turn around and break the law on a daily basis. That's all. -------- 6. The unique thing about the few Conservative minorities they have -- they're all by and large against what has been done with the Charter. You have a few women in the Conservative party...but they rarely advocate for women's rights. The statement about the contradiction on Majoritarianism stands. Resolve it Reagan, if you can. I'd like you to explain to me the Conservative position on balancing majoritarianism with minority rights, and explain why religious rights should be not be subject to majoritiarian whims while other minority rights should. --------- 7. Calgary has good people. Not all Calgarians are conservative (a solid 40% vote for parties other than the Conservatives) That said, communitarian values almost always cease when we're talking about social programs -- especially for the homeless. I refer you back to Myron Thompson's statements about Calgary's shelters. His sentiment is shared by many in the party. ----------- 8. It's interesting that Reagan didn't tackle the procreation contradiction. Go for it. I'd like to see you do a better job than the Calgary School, which just shouts, over and over again, that "You're just being a troublemaker!" whenever you raise the contradiction. --------- 9. The silence of the CPC was stunning following Ander's statements on Nelson Mandella. Both the CPC and Anders ought to be ashamed for the contradiction. Would you not agree? ---------- 10. I refer you back to the policy convention. If you were there, you heard PLENTY of this sentiment. Put another way, "The Honey goes to the cities, the country gets the bullplop." Resolve the contradiction between being anti-subsidy/free-market, and pro-subsidy/protectionist. --------------------- That said Reagan, if you don't think as many Conservatives do, with all these contradictions, say so. Don't try to defend them. The best conservative minds have tried, and frankly they've failed, miserably. Every time they try, they just expose more and more of their mean spiritedness towards their community and fellow Canadian. Now, anybody is perfectly free to point out NDP and Liberal contradictions, of which there are many -- but let's not excuse the Conservative contradictions merely because other parties have them. Let's tackle them head on and see what we can come up with to reject them. And no, they're not ridiculous. Many centrists and leftists on this forum recognize the arguements and are nodding. There is truth in them.

Hmmmmm, that poll is an outlyer with respect to the previous five. It's too soon to say whether or not this is a new trend. The cons still seem to be stuck at 30, while the libs, have been trending towards 40...I don't know why this poll is so off. I wonder if it's in the methodology.

It was a gimmick. Plain and simple. Let's have a vote on the budget.

Whoa. Slow down there. I didn't imply that if you support Bush that you're a bad, unpatriotic Canadian, I said that good, patriotic Canadians should sit up and take notice of what Harper has in store for us, and how similar his policies are to Bush's. If you love Bush, you'll Harper. I went onto enumerate several double standards of Canadian conservatives, which, laughably, conservatives have failed to tackle. The reason: you can't. I headed you off at the pass, and you can't argue each point on their merits. Argus gets props for trying to hit the 'traditions' line. Well, here's a classic example of traditions. Canadian is a country that was founded on anglo-saxon, Christian values. Since then, Canada has evolved and shed some of the worst anglo-saxon traditions: these include residential schools, internment camps, exclusion of asian immigration, and of course, restriction of suffrage. One of the last gasps of the bigotted side of the anglo-saxon Christian value group was the RCMP Turban fight. Thankfully, we've shed most of those traditions. To this statement, there will be two Conservative reactions. These are denial, and defense. The Denial line is to disassociate anglo-saxon values and Christian values from internment camps, residential schools, asian immigration and restriction of suffrage. Where did the idea that Canada was to be 'white' come from? The answer: from anglo-saxon traditional values, is pretty straightforward, but will be denied by the dumbest of conservatives. When pushed on where these values came from, they will reply, vaguely, "not from anglo-saxon values...". The Defense line is a defense of the old policies. They'll start off by attacking aboriginals in general, blaming them for their own plight, and the residential schools in particular. They'll quote how much money goes to the natives, make some burning door reference, and conclude that 'we've made it up to them many times over'. They'll defend asian immigration by denouncing 'political correctness' and making some reference to how 'white folk can't get no jobs in HongCouver'. As for the restriction of suffrage, they'll argue that it was all evolutionary, and as for the internment camps...well, that was self-defense. With Conservatives, it's clear: there are values, and the values that everybody in the country should abide by, as per Argus, by those who were here first. Well, if we're going by that logic, should we not be following aboriginal traditions? No, for some reason, they set anglo-saxon values as being the most ideal, and we should all live our lives as though it's 1921. It's classic Canadian conservatism to insist that you're all for 'letting the individual decide' while simultaneously forcing everybody in the country to live by their moral standards, and living their lives as conservatives want you to -- their way.

On the whole, if Canadians return an enhanced Liberal-NDP minority, as is the most likely possibility based on the latest numbers, then the Cons just handed Martin a big 'get out of jail free' card. There won't be an appetite for an election after Gommery by next January should there be an election in June. In effect, the parties will be extremely weak (save the BQ, which is going to get yet more money) and weary. Moreover, there would be a change of leadership in the Conservative party. Disastrous. The Cons really have managed to screw this all up.

The party implied that they supported the Ander's statement by defending those statements, and defending Ander's himself. And we're not talking about the Liberal wrongdoing here (Fry, Obrien, and Parrish), ample amounts have been written on that, and I agree, it's horrendous. At least the Liberals punish them when they step out of line.

Nice try -- it's just a motion. It's up to the government to decide if it's a confidence motion. If the budget is really so bad, why are you so afraid to run against it? Why concoct this fiction of a procedural motion being some sort of confidence motion?

The economies of Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick are fairly intergrated. How about that reason? What about the french minorities of Acadia and northern Ontario? I'm sure they want Quebec to remain for a number of reasons. Finally, values...aside from independence, the values of Quebeckers are very similar to those in the Maritimes and Ontario. It's Alberta that's the outlyer. People's with like values ought to stick together. So, for economic and cultural reasons, Quebec should stay...though I'd prefer it if Quebec managed to support itself instead of sucking the wealth away from the rest of the country.

1, 2, 6 and 8 do not simply apply to same sex marriage...they apply to general Canadian conservative logic. They hold a double standard ESPECIALLY with respect to the Christian God. Hardly hyperbole. 4 and 10. 4 was a statement made by several conservatives at the policy convention in Montreal. 10, specifically with respect to post offices, has been repeated during 'Statements by Members' in the house of commons over the past 2 weeks, by a number of rural conservative MPs. The implicit logic that rural canada should be subsidized on everything was also stated repeatedly at the convention. 5 -- nobody wants to repeal them, I'm referring to the conservative tendency to disregard seatbelt laws. I'll direct you to several Alberta surveys on the attitudes of rural albertans (conservatives) towards seat belt laws. If you listen closely enough, the arguement against seat belts mimics the ones against the gun registry...the whole "making criminals out of us" line comes out, even though it doesn't apply and the two arn't analogous, you'll hear ignorant conservatives use it. I also listened to a speech during the Manning years that raged against seat belt laws at length. Since it's my tax dollars that fund intensive care units in rural Alberta, I find it totally hippicritical that they break the law when it suits them, but decry everybody else when they do it. 7--See Myron Thompson's comments regarding the shelter money in 1999. The Conservative party is generally unsympathetic to the homeless and the battered. 9-- See Rob Ander's comments.

What could Harper possibly do? He can't move on the social agenda...all of the other parties are light years away from the Cons on everything: from same sex marriage to abortion. He can't move fiscally either...all of the other parties are light years away from the Cons on that front. Moreover, any moves towards decentralization is instantly linked to the BQ. So...what sort of mandate would a minority Con government have? What could they possibly do? A con minority government = unmitigated disaster. As for whether or not it's 'reasonable' to expect a con majority...of course it WAS, before the Cons totally screwed it up. 70 seats out west plus a majority from Ontario (60 to 70) plus a handful from Atlantic Canada = a majority government.

With the Libs on the ropes the way they are...if a Con can't win a majority, then it's a humiliation. Moreover, I'd hazard to bet that most Canadians will groan at a Lib-NDP coalition government, with the NDP there to keep the Liberal bastards honest, than a Con-BQ coalition. Harper needs a majority to govern. If he fails to get one, it will be humiliating.

Kimmy: With the situation the way that it is, if he can't win this time, he'll never be able to win. Hence, anything less than a majority: he needs to resign.

Four day work weeks are quite standard. They argue that they work hard. I know quite a few ppl who do it. ------------------- There you have it Reagan: you don't like Quebec. I mean, why would you? Their values are different from yours, so why not seek to get rid of them?

The great news here is that we see Conservatives who support Harper, also support Bush. That should be a signal to proud, patriotic, moderate Canadians to vote against Bush by voting against Harper. In effect, they argue that the lies wern't lies, and even if they were, the end result was good. I must ask then, why did Bush make his arguement on the basis that all dictators are bad, and that taking out Hussain would send a powerful signal? Sounds like a great arguement to me. Why didn't he use it? Could it be.....America is not in the business of spreading democracy? And if this is so, why hasn't Saudi Arabia shaped up? And what of Kirghizistan (sic)? What of the Sudan? I smell double standard. This to me is the defining characteristic of Conservatism in general, and Canadian Conservatism in particular. Let me enumerate the juiciest bits: 1. You will abide by the word of God, our Christian God, so long as you abide by our definition of it, and we're perfectly free to ignore the parts that we don't want to abide by, but you'll abide by what we want you to abide by. (Tithe's are an excellent example of this double standard.) 2. You will abide by traditions, except which traditions that we don't agree with. 3. Lying, when a Conservative politician lies, is not lying, it's pretending to be ignorant so as to gain popular support for the greater good. When a liberal lies, even about something that is not a matter of public policy, it's absolutely horrendous. 4. You will abide by the free market. Farmers are excluded from the free market because they are better people. Moreover, Farmers deserve better social services than those in the cities because people in the cities are evil. Moreover, all of the wealth is drawn from the countryside and goes into the city, and not enough comes back...even though that's the way the free market works, it shouldn't work for good conservative rural folk. 5. You will abide by the rule of law. Except when it comes to seat belts. It is a personal decision as to whether or not you want to wear a seat belt, and the feds have no right to send mounties out to make sure that you're doing that. Moreover, you don't have to stop at rural four-way stops. These are 'laws', but it's alright to bend them. 6. You will abide by the will of the majority. Minorities have gone too far in pushing equal rights in the country. However, the rights of the religious minority are excluded from the will of the majority, because these are good conservatives and as such deserve special rights such as tax exempt status even if they are participating in the political sphere, even though the majority doesn't want them there. 7. You will abide by our communitarian values. We've gone too far in taking care of poor people. The existence Homeless shelters and food banks merely encourage their use. Battered woman's shelters encourage the break up of marriages. 8. You will abide by our traditional family values. The purpose of marriage is for procreation. Except when it comes to allowing infertile heteresexual couples to get married. We see no contradiction in allowing them to get married in spite of the obvious contradiction. By pointing out such a contradiction, you are merely a troublemaker. You also know full well that homosexuals are inferior and cannot raise children, and so the procreation statement is merely 'cover' for our deep seeded hatred of homosexuals. We are sick of political correctness, which is really just another word for 'respect'. We don't respect homosexuals, and as such, we don't want them to get married. Besides, (eyeflutter), we merely think that marriage is a union between a man and a woman to exclusion of all others because marriage is about raising a family. Stop pointing out our contradictions, troublemaker. 9. George Washington was a hero because he led the charge against British Tyranny. Nelson Mandella is a terrorist because he led the charge against South African aparteid. Aparteid in modern times is a lot different than British tyranny, and you will not point this out repeatedly. 10. You should pay less in tax, and get fewer services. Unless you're from rural Canada. Then you keep your services, like subsidized phone, internet, roads, subsidies, and postal service. Who cares about the problems that face cities?

If Harper returns with anything less than a majority, under these circumstances, well -- he'll have to resign. The Alberta domination of the party will have to end as well. Ontario Cons shouldn't cheer this on either -- McKay can't win an election, because he has no credibility.