Sneaky Conservatism

[Wild Bill]

Are you being, as they say, "deliberately obtuse"? Whether Harper promised to keep Canada in Kyoto (as I, mistakenly, stated) or take it out of it (as you pointed out), does not change the fact that he still has to observe and implement the current law of the land in either case.

For the x,000 time now, Harper can follow up on his word and bring the issue up for a debate in the Parliament; that would be "being true to his word" and an honest policy. Or he can put it off for a while, and work in good faith on implementing the existing law, which is Kyoto. Which would also be an honest policy, though not really true to his original word.

What he don't have a privilige to do, whether he understands it or not, is to pretend to accept the will of majority, while quitely behind close doors do everything he could to ignore, diminish and denigrate it. That would be dishonest and sneaky politicking that must be stopped asap. This is what was said from the start, and I fail to see any change in my position at all.

Am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying the majority of Canadians are behind Kyoto?

I find that very hard to believe! I know we Canadians tend to be very shallow thinkers on these issues (a trait that the Liberals have always been the best to exploit) but surely the bulk of us aren't THAT simple!

Would you be willing to have Kyoto put to a referendum, in a clear question as to the costs if we catch up on the targets that the Liberal regime missed? So that everyone is aware of lost jobs or higher costs/taxes?

And please don't tell me we'll all be employed in new "green" industries! We're already behind many other countries in that department. "Johnny Come Lately" has a hard time competing. Besides, even if it were true it's never the same guy who lost his high-paying job in an auto plant who gets that job making solar panels. The solar panel plant wants younger guys and also pays a lot less! The auto worker is usually over 50 and thus unemployable in practice, despite all the government programs and propaganda to the contrary.

Myself, I'd prefer a referendum! I don't think it would pass but if it did there would be at least one blessing. Canadians would get a bigtime reality check that would educate them to be more practical and less idealistic that would last them a long, long time! Pain is a very good teacher!

[myata]

I'm the obtuse one?

OK, I guess that's the last resort. I consent you points on spelling and I'll cheer for you in the next Grade 5 spelling bee!

That is not what was said from the start. Again, here's what you said:

You have admitted that Harper keeps his word, i.e. doesn't "talk as a Progressive, act as a social (con)".

But he does create an appearance of talking, or behaving like a Progressive by not acting on his promise to retract from Kyoto. And by not implementing it in good faith, as any democratic politician would have to do, he's putting his social conservative ideology ahead of the existing law of the land. No change, unless you make yourself see it where it doesn't exist.

Progressive conservative could support Kyoto and work on implementing it;

Social conservative would do their best to formally withdraw from it;

Harper cons will behave as though they accepts it, even if reluctantly (really - they won't openly challenge it in the Parliament, will they), but then, as one of the participants here rightfully said, simply "refuse to implement it". This is sneaky conservatism at its worst.

[Pliny]

We can say that if you provide an example (better still, multiple examples, and within pretty short time period) where another party ignored existing law, or attempted to devise ingenous ways around it.

Spot on. I don't know what they are risking or not. But they don't have the privilege to "refuse to abide by Kyoto" while it's the law of the land. That's what yourself, and Harper cons seem to be failing to understand. It's OK for an individual, but a party displaying such a glaring lack of understanding of the basics of democracy should take a timeout. Long one, if necessary. The law is there not becasue Harper may think that it's good for us (or not). It's there becasue it was adopted through democratic process.

Nobody is saying Liberals were great on the issue, but its no excuse for ignoring the law. If Harper wanted to change it, the way is open. Why won't he? Could it be that it's not just the Liberals? Maybe, majority of Canadians support Kyoto? And their elected representatives in the Parliament won't let Harper do it? Anyways, while he's thinking about it, he does not have that privilege "to refuse" to abide by a law. On the contrary, as a minister he has sworn to abide by the law and has an obligation to implement it in good faith. Anything less is being in contempt of democracy.

In all respects, government must be held accountable, be they Liberals, Conservatives, NDPers. You like to hold the Conservatives accountable especially, or so it seems in this case.

The majority of people do not take an interest in politics. When you are talking about a democratic majority you are talking about people who have an interest in an issue, not a majority. You think the majority support Kyoto, for instance. The majority have no clue about Kyoto. If you say to them it is about the environment and cleaning up the environment that is all they feel they need to know or it is all they are interested in knowing. Who is not for cleaning up the environment? Instant majority and congratulatory self-righteousness! If you say it is about global transfers of wealth to undeveloped third world nations they might think differently of it.

Politics, is a snake pit. A rats nest. If you were to warn people to watch all parties I would say you had a concern about democracy. That you are warning people about the conservative party and their contempt for democracy tells me you are more concerned with the conservative party than democracy.

You probably would think well of Hugo Chavez, who would like to proclaim himself perpetual leader of the Venezuelan population. Now that is definitely an undemocratic policy however I suspect you like Chavez.

The Conservatives are not a threat to democracy. You contend they hold it in contempt by not abiding to a document the Liberals themselves could be charged with holding in contempt.

Unfortunately, you ignore the Liberal's neglect of the implementation of environmental policy in accordance with Kyoto. I myself, consider the fact they didn't do this as a plus and any further stalling of the implementation of Kyoto a benefit to mankind. You cannot assume from that statement, as many Liberals would sneakily do, that I am not for a clean environment.

Democracy? Funny you feel it is being held in contempt.

You have a special interest - perhaps it is just supporting the Liberal party or perhaps it is just condemning the Conservative party, and the issues are not of a concern. Or perhaps an issue is your concern. Most likely, a particular social policy of the Liberals appeals to you. Perhaps you have a basic concept of the Liberal ideology being warm and fuzzy and conservatives being cold and hard, I don't know. Whatever your "special interest" you should keep people informed of it and not sneakily try to gain support by condemning a party that perhaps doesn't particularly cater to it.

I will tell you my "special interest". It is to keep government small and limited and accountable. I would be Liberal in a classical sense but Liberalism has swung to Statism so I would be more inclined to vote Conservative today than Liberal although I suspect both parties betray my "special interest". I prefer Conservatism because it is a restraint on Liberalism and the concentration of power to a central authority. I expect, politics being what it is, there will be scandal, inefficiency, sneakiness, pandering, bigotry, favouritism, pork-barreling, and even charges of "contempt for democracy" to occur, no matter what party forms government. The only thing in my view that lessens thepossibility of these things is less government. In order for there to be less government there has to be less dependence on government and more reliance upon society to resolve it's iniquities and inequities without the heavy-handed force of law and more with the power of reason.

[Pliny]

Am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying the majority of Canadians are behind Kyoto?

I find that very hard to believe! I know we Canadians tend to be very shallow thinkers on these issues (a trait that the Liberals have always been the best to exploit) but surely the bulk of us aren't THAT simple!

Would you be willing to have Kyoto put to a referendum, in a clear question as to the costs if we catch up on the targets that the Liberal regime missed? So that everyone is aware of lost jobs or higher costs/taxes?

And please don't tell me we'll all be employed in new "green" industries! We're already behind many other countries in that department. "Johnny Come Lately" has a hard time competing. Besides, even if it were true it's never the same guy who lost his high-paying job in an auto plant who gets that job making solar panels. The solar panel plant wants younger guys and also pays a lot less! The auto worker is usually over 50 and thus unemployable in practice, despite all the government programs and propaganda to the contrary.

Myself, I'd prefer a referendum! I don't think it would pass but if it did there would be at least one blessing. Canadians would get a bigtime reality check that would educate them to be more practical and less idealistic that would last them a long, long time! Pain is a very good teacher!

Bump!

[Michael Bluth]

Progressive conservative could support Kyoto and work on implementing it;

Social conservative would do their best to formally withdraw from it;

Harper cons will behave as though they accepts it, even if reluctantly (really - they won't openly challenge it in the Parliament, will they), but then, as one of the participants here rightfully said, simply "refuse to implement it". This is sneaky conservatism at its worst.

Ahhh, I get the obtuseness. You insult, then mock. Got it.

You really have no clear understanding of the definition of progressive conservative and social conservative.

Kyoto is dead. The Liberals paid lip service but did nothing to implement it. That's an example of slimy Liberalism.

The Conservatives have done more on the file than the Liberals ever did.

Yet, for refusing to pay money offshore that won't help Canada.

Obtuseness? Time to look in the mirror.

[myata]

Politics, is a snake pit. A rats nest. If you were to warn people to watch all parties I would say you had a concern about democracy. That you are warning people about the conservative party and their contempt for democracy tells me you are more concerned with the conservative party than democracy.

Also Wild Bill:

Sure, there may be problems with the current state of democracy in this country. I, for once, think that its a shame that a leader like Chretien had to take the entire party down the drain, before he's finally let go.

This can be changed (hopefully, to the better), but again, only through democratic process itself. Whatever its deficiencies, it's proven many times better than unchecked individials or groups imposing their understanding of right and goods on all. And in no way do these deficiencies give anybody, whether in power or not, the privilege to ignore the law of the land.

Maybe, a referendum would be a good idea. If only to make us really understand and commit to what's at issue.

You probably would think well of Hugo Chavez, who would like to proclaim himself perpetual leader of the Venezuelan population. Now that is definitely an undemocratic policy however I suspect you like Chavez.

With a crystal ball like this, why wouldn't you turn it to better purpose? E.g reading the mind of Bill Gates, and making a fortune. Then donating it to the party of your choice.

The Conservatives are not a threat to democracy. You contend they hold it in contempt by not abiding to a document the Liberals themselves could be charged with holding in contempt.

Unfortunately, you ignore the Liberal's neglect of the implementation of environmental policy in accordance with Kyoto.

Of course, there's a huge distance between poor implementation of law and deliberate negligence of it. It's off the topic though. You want to discuss whether Liberals supposed inaction, in their past years in power, amounted to contempt of this law? I'm open to that. But it won't change the fact that Harpers cons are guilty of it one single bit.

You have a special interest - perhaps it is just supporting the Liberal party or perhaps it is just condemning the Conservative party, and the issues are not of a concern. Or perhaps an issue is your concern. Most likely, a particular social policy of the Liberals appeals to you. Perhaps you have a basic concept of the Liberal ideology being warm and fuzzy and conservatives being cold and hard, I don't know. Whatever your "special interest" you should keep people informed of it and not sneakily try to gain support by condemning a party that perhaps doesn't particularly cater to it.

Lot of far reaching guessing - but any practical evidence of any? Perhaps even arguments that can be substaniated with logic, rather than fuzzy theoretising what other people think?

[myata]

Kyoto is dead. The Liberals paid lip service but did nothing to implement it. That's an example of slimy Liberalism.

If so, you'll sure have no problem answering one simple question (away with obtuseness): why - won't - Harper's Conservatives - say it in the open - to the public - and bring it for a vote - in the Parliament - as democractic process - which is btw still alive in this country - requires?

Edited December 6, 2007 by myata

[Michael Bluth]

If so, you'll sure have no problem answering one simple question (away with obtuseness): why - won't - Harper cons - say it in the open - to the public - and bring it for a vote - in the Parliament - as democractic process - which is btw still alive in this country - requires?

Not such a simple question. Seriously take a look at what you typed.

Maybe ask two or three smaller questions and we can go from there.

Trying to read into your convoluted question.....

The Conservatives have repeatedly, publicly stated their objections to Kyoto. They have presented their own environmental plan to Parliament.

Your interpretation of what is required in a 'democratic process' is lacking.

[myata]

Now speaking of obtuseness ... And I sincerely hoped we were over with it.

No really, its very simple: they either cancel Kyoto via a vote in Parliament, or honestly and in good faith comply with it. Try again?

[Michael Bluth]

No really, its very simple: they either cancel Kyoto via a vote in Parliament, or honestly and in good faith comply with it. Try again?

Who presented those as the options?

The Conservtives can't meet the Kyoto targets without crippling the economy and/or shipping tens of billions of dollars offshore. Thanks to Steph Dion and his terrible performance as Environment Minister.

The opposition doesn't have the cojones to defeat the Government over the issue.

Sorry, but democracy is a messy thing.

Most Canadians don't care enough about the issue to force an election over it. That's majority rule. That's democracy.

[no queenslave]

Now speaking of obtuseness ... And I sincerely hoped we were over with it.

No really, its very simple: they either cancel Kyoto via a vote in Parliament, or honestly and in good faith comply with it. Try again?

The liberals ran on geting Canada out of the free trade agrement and did not.

The liberals got into power by promising to get rid of the GST and did not .

the liberals are as obtuse as you ; but you are more obtuse in not understanding the government has no legal right to govern from the people. If you insist the dictatorship of a country has rules to follow; who gave them their rules.

[noahbody]

Now speaking of obtuseness ... And I sincerely hoped we were over with it.

No really, its very simple: they either cancel Kyoto via a vote in Parliament, or honestly and in good faith comply with it. Try again?

They could have a referendum on the issue.

I think if you outline what kyoto will achieve without the US, India and China and the costs in doing so and give alternatives such as a domestic plan which would comply Canada to invest the money, they'd be giving away through Kyoto penalties, directly into the environment, the majority of Canadians would choose the domestic plan. Of course there would be other options that would include balanced reductions and funding for further study.

[myata]

Who presented those as the options?

The fact that Canada is a democratic coutry ruled by law. Ministers are sworn to uphold the law of the land. Kyoto is the law of the land. The law can be changed, through democratic process; or followed and upheld; it cannot be "refused" if someone believes otherwise, even if they happen to be in the government. Sneaky cons either don't understand, or deliberatly ignore the requirements of democracy.

The Conservtives can't meet the Kyoto targets without crippling the economy and/or shipping tens of billions of dollars offshore.

Like, they tried. Real hard.

The opposition doesn't have the cojones to defeat the Government over the issue.

And again, opposition did not make Harper cons the way they are. Altough it certainly should do a better job exposing them for what they are. I sincerely hope it will be an issue in the next election. And I'm going to bring it up in my riding at the least.

[myata]

.... the majority of Canadians would choose the domestic plan. Of course there would be other options that would include balanced reductions and funding for further study.

And I thought that majority of Canadians, through their elected representatives, and a vote in the Parliament, have decided to be a part of this treaty. And, to my knowledge, that hasn't changed, just yet?

But of course, if you speak for the majority - what can one say?

[Michael Bluth]

And I thought that majority of Canadians, through their elected representatives, and a vote in the Parliament, have decided to be a part of this treaty.

Do explain that.

But of course, if you speak for the majority - what can one say?

You don't speak for the majority.

Sorry the world isn't as black and white as you want.

Interesting how you have ignored the Liberals broken promises on NAFTA and the GST.

Are those two examples of slimey Liberals or not? Were you complaining about their lack of respect for democracy in those cases?

[no queenslave]

The fact that Canada is a democratic coutry ruled by law. Ministers are sworn to uphold the law of the land. Kyoto is the law of the land. The law can be changed, through democratic process; or followed and upheld; it cannot be "refused" if someone believes otherwise, even if they happen to be in the government. Sneaky cons either don't understand, or deliberatly ignore the requirements of democracy.

Like, they tried. Real hard.

And again, opposition did not make Harper cons the way they are. Altough it certainly should do a better job exposing them for what they are. I sincerely hope it will be an issue in the next election. And I'm going to bring it up in my riding at the least.

How many times have you been sworn in as a minister?

You do not even understand the definition of democracy.

The ministers are sworn to obey the queen not a Canadian constitution which you claim is the law of the land.

Kyoto is not the law of the land; when did you vote in a referendum to make it the law of the land?

The misconception that you think Canada is a democratic country which does not follow the law of the land just demonstrates how obtuse you are.

QUOTE " The queen pays me to post.... I am not going to take any position contrary to the one I'm paid to take " by jbg

which liberal riding is that?

IS innocent till proven guilty the law of the land in federal tax court ?

[Michael Bluth]

How many times have you been sworn in as a minister?

You do not even understand the definition of democracy.

If he doesn't understand the meaning of hypocrisy he has sure proven it.

Slimey Liberals break their word on NAFTA and the GST. Completely ignored.

Conservatives keep their promise on Kyoto. They are ignoring 'democratic prinicples'.

As for the Senate - can live with the compromises of democratic rule.

Why, oh why can he obtusely hammer away at such a ridiculous issue?

[noahbody]

Like, they tried. Real hard.

Funny how you used hurting the economy as an excuse for Liberal inaction and at the time they'd only have to make a 6% reduction over a decade.

[no queenslave]

If he doesn't understand the meaning of hypocrisy he has sure proven it.

Slimey Liberals break their word on NAFTA and the GST. Completely ignored.

Conservatives keep their promise on Kyoto. They are ignoring 'democratic prinicples'.

As for the Senate - can live with the compromises of democratic rule.

Why, oh why can he obtusely hammer away at such a ridiculous issue?

because that is the liberal law.

[myata]

Slimey Liberals break their word on NAFTA and the GST. Completely ignored.

One (thousands) more time, at issue is not changing position (everybody does that, and within reasonable limits it's inevitable, nobody can read the future), but not stating their position openly and holding in contempt the current law of the land. If Liberals attempted to sabotage NAFTA, while it was a law, you'd have a point.

OK I want to think that you're honestly not getting it, and there's very little I can do about it. Sorry.

[myata]

Funny how you used hurting the economy as an excuse for Liberal inaction and at the time they'd only have to make a 6% reduction over a decade.

This is not exactly the topic for this discussion, but very briefly, and not excusing their dismal record, the situation was different back then. The country had just recovered from a deep long recession, and I would at least understand that nobody was particularly eager to do anything that could potentially send us back into the pit. Also, the symptoms of urgency of the matter were much less apparent back then than now. I'm not excusing them though. More should have been done without doubt, and they paid for it in the election. As Harper cons should pay for their conscious and deliberate sabotage of the accord.

[Michael Bluth]

Funny how you used hurting the economy as an excuse for Liberal inaction and at the time they'd only have to make a 6% reduction over a decade.

It's much more contemptuous for the Liberals to play like the champions of the environment and do nothing.

Yup, no use going into this one anymore. From what I understand the law of the land only applies to Conservative governments. If Liberals ignore the law or make flat out lies nothing but ignorance or excuses.

[Pliny]

I'm not excusing them though.

Yes you are.

More should have been done without doubt, and they paid for it in the election. As Harper cons should pay for their conscious and deliberate sabotage of the accord.

More and more people are realizing that Kyoto was a mistake and deserves a conscious and deliberate sabotage. Fewer and fewer are concerned about "a conscious and deliberate sabotage of the accord" and that is democracy at work.

My crystal ball says soon this thread will be dead.

[no queenslave]

This is not exactly the topic for this discussion, but very briefly, and not excusing their dismal record, the situation was different back then. The country had just recovered from a deep long recession, and I would at least understand that nobody was particularly eager to do anything that could potentially send us back into the pit. Also, the symptoms of urgency of the matter were much less apparent back then than now. I'm not excusing them though. More should have been done without doubt, and they paid for it in the election. As Harper cons should pay for their conscious and deliberate sabotage of the accord.

Post how you think the cons deliberate sabotage the accord. How many countries are involved?

Can the cons change the accord by themselves? Maybe you alone can save the accord ; if you only knew how it is to operate, and how you were to determine if it is accomplishing what it is suppose to do.

Was it to stop you from creating too much heat?

[myata]

More and more people are realizing that Kyoto was a mistake and deserves a conscious and deliberate sabotage. Fewer and fewer are concerned about "a conscious and deliberate sabotage of the accord" and that is democracy at work.

Sure, see post #107 (till you manage to answer the question, all references to "more" and "fewer" are shallow, as majority has already spoken on the matter).