Crappy Right Wing Policies

[Guest coot]

You looked it up after you used it?

I get it. Your 'context' is different. Thus ignoring basic rules of grammar and common sense make sense within the 'context' you inhabit.

Too bad you are the only one on that board operating in that 'context' ..... maybe it's a good thing.

So by stating I don't understand basic grammar, you are proving yourself to be a crippled debater and provided yourself with the material to attack my character.

Bravo sir, bravo!

It is you who stated that those three nouns weren't adjectives, which they are in that sentence. Stating that fact is not an attack on your character, good sir. I can't imagine how you would find it to be so. I simply found humour in your implication that my grammar was ever once short of impeccable and how you followed that with your remedial error in very basic usage. I'm sure your character is most upstanding--at least when you're not calling others "Harper haters."

I believe if anyone is ignoring anything, it is you who is avoiding the meaning of that sentence. It is as though you are denying the obvious in the hopes that others in their clouded, distracted state would be too befuddled to even comprehend the clarity of August's meaning.

Rae is a Liberal. August stated Mercer was sympathetic to this Liberal. He backed that up by describing him with those three nouns. And whenever you describe something, you do it with adjectives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYzGLzFuwxI

Edited December 6, 2007 by coot

[Michael Bluth]

Stating that fact is not an attack on your character, good sir. I can't imagine how you would find it to be so.

You didn't mean this to be an insult?

If you understood basic, literally Grade 9 grammar

If you don't see how that could be taken as an insult, then there is no reasoning with you.

[Guest coot]

You didn't mean this to be an insult?

If you don't see how that could be taken as an insult, then there is no reasoning with you.

You called my grammar faulty and said those three words were not being used as adjectives, saying the following:

Boy for a guy who throws out terms like corybantic perhaps you should work on your basic grammar to start.

Now you whine that I'm being insulting by merely pointing out that your insults about my grammar are completely and totally baseless? I was being exceedingly kind by saying its Grade 9 grammar because it's more like Grade 3. I only point this out in the "context" of you raising the issue, so I really have no choice but to correct you.

I'm truly sorry if you feel bitch-slapped, but you put your face in front of my hand. Perhaps you wouldn't feel so "insulted" if you weren't so embarassingly wrong.

Edited December 6, 2007 by coot

[White Doors]

Anyways, who's to say he isn't a conservative? Just because he is gay doesn't mean he is a left winger, only a left footer.

[Guest coot]

Anyways, who's to say he isn't a conservative? Just because he is gay doesn't mean he is a left winger, only a left footer.

I agree. August is the one who implied he isn't a conservative by suggesting he must be sympathetic to the Libs because he's a gay CBC newfie. Bluth is still working on comprehending the sentence.

[Michael Bluth]

Anyways, who's to say he isn't a conservative? Just because he is gay doesn't mean he is a left winger, only a left footer.

And nobody implied anything else.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Wild Bill]

I have a gay friend in Toronto who absolutely despises the NDP! Apparently one election campaign years ago some of their canvassers came to his door. His wardrobe and speech patterns make his persuasion obvious and once they twigged to this they instantly made the assumption that he was already their supporter!

To this day he calls them "those patronizing bastards!"

He's an incredible rock drummer, BTW. Puts the lie to those who think gays are only into show tunes!

[gc1765]

We all know how much he's proven his hidden agenda.

Look at all the scary socon laws the Government has passed with a minority.

Well actually it's none.

First it was what he'd do if he wins. Then it will be what he'd do if he won a majority. What follows that?

So, you disagree with Tom Flanagan?

Anyways, if Harper does have a hidden agenda (and I'm not saying that he does), do you really think he would bring it out with a minority government? If he tried to do anything too controversial, the government would fall and the Liberals would likely be elected with a majority. If Harper has a hidden agenda, we won't see it with a minority. That's probably why a lot of people who vote Conservative would like to see a minority government, but would never vote for the Conservatives if they thought they might get a majority - and that could have something to do with the fact that the Conservatives have trouble breaking through to majority territory in the polls.

[August1991]

OMG.

If I'm not mistaken that's how Bob Rae described the Tories/Reagan/Harris in his interview with the sympathetic gay CBC Newfie Rick Mercer. [iIRC, Rae said that he wanted to be federal Liberal leader because he didn't agree with 'crappy right wing policies'. Then he went skindipping into a freezing lake for the cameras.]

But what of it? What are "crappy right wing policies"? Does the Right really mean to "screw" ordinary people? Is the Right rich and the Left poor? In federal Canada?

I should have posted "... Bob Rae described the Tories/Reagan/Harris in his interview with the sympathetic gay/CBC/Newfie Rick Mercer... "

"Tories Reagan Harris" is just as much of a stereotype as "gay CBC Newfie". Gimme a break.

----

Bob Rae's a smart guy and so when I heard Bob Rae talk to a (sympathetic) Rick Mercer about "Crappy Right Wing Policies", I wondered: Is this how the intelligent Left views the Right? In the intelligent Left view, the Right doesn't care about ordinary people?

What are "Crappy Right Wing policies"? (Can someone explain?)

IMV, on the contrary, the Right cares far more about ordinary people than the Left does. The Left wants to change ordinary people. The Right wants to let ordinary people have a decent chance in life.

Bob Rae is not only a tax-and-spend Liberal, he also has an agenda of thought. He wants to change us. Like most Leftists, Rae wants to perfect the Human Race. He wants to improve our status by changing us.

So, when I heard the phrase "Crappy Right Wing Policies", I wondered. Does Rae mean that "Crappy Right Wing Policies" are the same as "Greed is bad"? Really?

Edited December 7, 2007 by August1991

[blueblood]

I think that a true right winger believes that the government should stay out of everything, fiscally and socially. I mean it would be hypocrisy to state that one is a Conservative by saying they believe in free market principles and at the same time believe the government should dictate regressive social policies--> thats crossing into facism land. I'll say that Conservatives are the ones that don't dictate anything at all except for of course the criminal code and the Bill of Rights by Diefenbaker. I also think that Crown Corporations can and should exist, but should not have monopolies.

A Canadian Prime Minister is FAR more accountable than an American President. Bush can get away with doing his ridiculous shenanigans because he only has an 8 year term, he's more accountable to history than the American People. After his second election, it doesn't matter what he does, his tenure as head of state is finished anyway. The Prime Minister on the other hand has no limit on how long he can rule and must have an election every five years. If he's a good enough Prime Minister, in theory he can rule for 20-30 years. Why in all that is holy would Harper piss away an opportunity to rule for a long time by enacting any ridiculous right removing policy that leftists are suggesting? He'd be voted out of office and the CPC would be obliterated in the next election. If given a majority, he'll push his agenda through, but nothing crazy, he's accountable to the people of Canada, and the prospect of ruling for 20 years is a much sweeter prize than some idealism.

Leftist fear mongering of the CPC is getting ridiculous.

[August1991]

I think that a true right winger believes that the government should stay out of everything, fiscally and socially. I mean it would be hypocrisy to state that one is a Conservative by saying they believe in free market principles and at the same time believe the government should dictate regressive social policies--> thats crossing into facism land.

On the contrary.

There are many (specific) cases where markets with prices don't work well. Then, the government could possibly improve the situation and make people's lives better.

Leftists unfortunately have a tendency to see all of life's problems as a failure of collective life in general. Leftists want to change human nature, rather than imagine a good society based on what the world is.

IME, Leftists are bad at math or more precisely, I think Leftists - even those who understand math - don't really understand the mathematics of John Nash. That's sad.

[jdobbin]

On the contrary.

There are many (specific) cases where markets with prices don't work well. Then, the government could possibly improve the situation and make people's lives better.

Leftists unfortunately have a tendency to see all of life's problems as a failure of collective life in general. Leftists want to change human nature, rather than imagine a good society based on what the world is.

IME, Leftists are bad at math or more precisely, I think Leftists - even those who understand math - don't really understand the mathematics of John Nash. That's sad.

I'm not sure who you consider to be leftists. I also don't know when you think the government should step in to improve the lives of people.

As far as the pure mathematics of John Nash, what do you hope for that so-called left to learn from his game theory, embedding theorems and the Nash equilibrium?

[Canuck E Stan]

I'm not sure who you consider to be leftists.

You seem to find no issue with labelling people as being "right wing" when they don't agree with YOUR thinking.

Everything from the sceptics in global warming to same sex marriage to where and how people want to raise their kids.

Why would it be difficult for you to understand what others consider "leftist."? Or is this something that only an arrogant leftist has a monopoly to define?

[jdobbin]

You seem to find no issue with labelling people as being "right wing" when they don't agree with YOUR thinking.

Everything from the sceptics in global warming to same sex marriage to where and how people want to raise their kids.

Why would it be difficult for you to understand what others consider "leftist."? Or is this something that only an arrogant leftist has a monopoly to define?

Since it is mainly those on the right wing who have those views on those issues, why should it be a problem? Are you saying that the right doesn't have these views on the whole?

As far as my question goes to another poster, I was interested in what they considered to leftist. For some reason it seems to have made you quite upset.

Edited December 9, 2007 by jdobbin

[Moxie]

You seem to find no issue with labelling people as being "right wing" when they don't agree with YOUR thinking.

Everything from the sceptics in global warming to same sex marriage to where and how people want to raise their kids.

Why would it be difficult for you to understand what others consider "leftist."? Or is this something that only an arrogant leftist has a monopoly to define?

LOL bang on the money, but you forgot the leftwing expects we the rightwing to pay for their utopian dream of "Socialist Elite Hell Hole" I wonder how they'll pick a leader, oh that's right some rich dude from Quebec should fit the bill nicely. As long as he embraces Multiculture and Global Warning.

[August1991]

This originating post of the Mercer/Rae interview came up:

Why do you want to be Prime Minister?

"I want to beat Stephen Harper, first of all."

"I want to take the government away from being ideological."

"There are people who are driven by nasty theories.... "

"All this resistance to same sex... The insistence that the market is going to triumph in every instance, in every way. You can put a dollar on every thing, and that's how you run everything."

"I don't believe in that. I think you have to take care of people. You have to have a government that provides leadership, pragmatic, that's thoughtful. Not based on these crappy right wing ideologies."

Bob Rae is human. Stephen Harper is a robot. In a modern election campaign, in Canada, French and English, Bob Rae will win. Stephen Harper will lose.

This was the origin of my OP and the thread title. Rae has a point.