Sneaky Conservatism

[myata]

This is a stupid topic that wreaks of conspiracy on both sides.

And why won't you contribute something smart for a change? And if you can't contribute anything smart, how about keeping your (whatever you name them) comments to yourself? Just an idea - enjoy.

[Pliny]

Seems to me you may have problems in comprehending what you read. Please reread the post, slowly, and repeat in necessary, before commenting. What was said is, "the fact of being elected into minority government does not entitle them to neglect democratic process". Canada's participation in Kyoto is a law adopted through a democratic process. And the only way it can be changed is via democratic process itself. That is, debate and vote in the Parliament. By refusing to implement, in good faith, the current law of the land, sneaky cons are showing blant and obvious contempt for democracy. Period.

Could be I don't understand what you mean by"democratic process". If you think it is having a debate and then voting the party line with a majority government than I am confused. Let's say both parties are guilty of that blatant and obvious contempt for democracy.

It doesn't sound like the Conservatives are being sneaky about anything. They are risking a lot by refusing to abide by Kyoto. Perhaps they should do as the Liberals did, nothing but talk the talk, sway a few Liberals over to win a majority government and then sign off the bill - after a democratic debate, of course.

I don't understand why governments are so willing to sign on to such an obvious political document that does very little about the environment.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Pliny

[no queenslave]

Oh my. OK. Maybe Harper disagrees (deep inside), I'm ready to accept it with any appropriate apologies. But the matter of fact remains all the same: Canada is still in the agreement. And until Harper and his cons take it to a democratic debate, and a vote, and win it, they are obligated to comply with it and implment it in good faith.

Democratic process is clear and precise: you either win the majority on your side, or follow the decision supported by majority even if it goes against your personal views. Or, of course, resign.

This is not what Harper cons do. They do not put their plans out for democratic debate. And they don't respect, in good faith, the will of majority already expressed through democratic process. They are in contempt.

You seem to think we have a democracy, but we don't ; we have colonial rule , with politicians swear to obey the queen.

First you have to post your legal definition of a democracy; from a legal dictionary, before you start telling us how a democracy is to work. It is clear you do not understand what a democracy is.

[Fain]

And why won't you contribute something smart for a change? And if you can't contribute anything smart, how about keeping your (whatever you name them) comments to yourself? Just an idea - enjoy.

How about No??? hmmmm that sounds good to me. Post your conspiracy fear-mongering elsewhere. You hold fringe beliefs and are blatantly biased.

I post my "smart" replies in the topics with substance.

[Pliny]

You seem to think we have a democracy, but we don't ; we have colonial rule , with politicians swear to obey the queen.

First you have to post your legal definition of a democracy; from a legal dictionary, before you start telling us how a democracy is to work. It is clear you do not understand what a democracy is.

Okay, so would you replace the Queen with a politburo?

There is a certain structure in the British Commonwealth and that structure is being protected by being kept transparent and benign. It isn't in the news, it isn't discussed, it doesn't credit itself with making law, nor with good or bad economies or social conditions. What other monarchy has done so well? The governance of the people has been largely left up to themselves in a kind of loose laissez-faire manner and most members of the commonwealth enjoy a high standard of living.

I myself prefer a more limited government and, I believe, income tax is definitely an unfair system and our system of graduated income taxes comes right out of the Communist Manifesto -"to each according to their need and from each according to their ability to pay".

Income is a poor way to tax citizens. So, you already have a communist taxation system which you dislike, and exists purely because it has been found to be politically expedient, why would you promote further leftist concepts?

I also believe you are correct that Myata doesn't understand what a democracy is. It appears she understands it to be using the pressure of special interests until a law can be tabled to sanction those interests and a majority government can ramrod legislation for political gain.

[myata]

How about No??? hmmmm that sounds good to me. ...

I post my "smart" replies in the topics with substance.

I can't care less. You cannot dump your intellectual garbage here. So unless you're willing to educate yourself on the rules of this board, next time you're going to deal with the mod.

[myata]

Could be I don't understand what you mean by"democratic process". If you think it is having a debate and then voting the party line with a majority government than I am confused. Let's say both parties are guilty of that blatant and obvious contempt for democracy.

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.

It doesn't sound like the Conservatives are being sneaky about anything. They are risking a lot by refusing to abide by Kyoto.

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.

Perhaps they should do as the Liberals did, nothing but talk the talk, sway a few Liberals over to win a majority government and then sign off the bill - after a democratic debate, of course.

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.

[Michael Bluth]

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.

The Liberals are providing them with that privilege with their continual abstentions from votes.

Rodriguez's PMB was a joke. That much more now that the Liberals refuse to use their power to defeat the Government over the matter.

The Liberals have the power here. You have continually ignored that fact.

Hate on my friend. Hate on.

[myata]

What a joke! You mean, Harper playing these games around the law, is somehow the fault of the opposition? You mean, he seriously honestly wanted to have a debate on all these issues, and maybe, even, have a vote, but seeing opposition so weak, he just couldn't resist the temptation?

The argument is wearing thinner by minute - soon it'll be gone in smoke, completely.

[Michael Bluth]

The argument is wearing thinner by minute - soon it'll be gone in smoke, completely.

Like you unsubstantiated allegations over Kyoto that have repeatedly been proven wrong.

If this was such an affront to democracty the opposition could step in and end the Government.

They campaigned against Kyoto and are acting on their campaign promises.

Much better than the Liberals who signed Kyoto then let it languish.

[myata]

If this was such an affront to democracty the opposition could step in and end the Government.

So you don't object that this is indeed an affront to democracy? We can certainly go on to discuss how the opposition did or should react to it now.

They campaigned against Kyoto and are acting on their campaign promises.

Acting on their promises would be to bring their ideas for an open debate and a vote in the Parliament, as democratic process requires. Not kicking the existing law of the land under the table. That's not acting on promises. This is showing contempt for the law.

[Michael Bluth]

So you don't object that this is indeed an affront to democracy?

No, that's why I said *IF*.

This thread has nothing to do with *sneaky Conservatism*.

It's all about getting your hate on for the Conservatives.

The Conservatives followed the letter of the law that flowed from Rodriguez's PMB, so all your protestations are pretty hollow.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Shakeyhands]

Like you unsubstantiated allegations over Kyoto that have repeatedly been proven wrong.

If this was such an affront to democracty the opposition could step in and end the Government.

They campaigned against Kyoto and are acting on their campaign promises.

Much better than the Liberals who signed Kyoto then let it languish.

I like you Michael, I really do. However, it drives me to drink when you pick one thing out of an argument and hammer and hammer away. The poster was incorrect about what he said about Kyoto and basically admitted it. Why the need to go on and on about it? When you are proven wrong you usually leave the thread and thats it, no one keeps dogging you on it.

[Michael Bluth]

I like you Michael, I really do. However, it drives me to drink when you pick one thing out of an argument and hammer and hammer away. The poster was incorrect about what he said about Kyoto and basically admitted it. Why the need to go on and on about it?

The whole premise of the OP's argument was that the Conservatives handling of a number of issues, Kyoto being one of them, was an example of their sneakiness.

Had he agreed that he was wrong and left it there would have been nothing to say.

He is still using Kyoto as an example of what is wrong with the Conservatives. Changing the line of attack from sneakiness to some tripe about lack of democracy.

I like you too Shakey. I question your fairness sometimes. The OP here has been hammering away at the Conservatives. I'm just fighting back.

A certain poster posts repeatedly about anything the Government does and paints it in the worst possible light. Why doesn't that drive you to drink?

[Shakeyhands]

It did when it was the other way around a couple of years ago.

[Fortunata]

A certain poster posts repeatedly about anything the Government does and paints it in the worst possible light

Maybe they honestly see it in the worst possible light as you see it in the most positive possible light. You don't see the underside or downside; why do you not grant that it can honestly work the other way?

Somewhere in between the worst possible and the best possible, I'm sure the truth lies. What is apparent, however, is that Harper will do absolutely anything to get a majority. Do you deny this?

[myata]

No, that's why I said *IF*.

This thread has nothing to do with *sneaky Conservatism*.

It's all about getting your hate on for the Conservatives.

Now, now, calm down. You'll sure do better next time.

[Michael Bluth]

Maybe they honestly see it in the worst possible light as you see it in the most positive possible light. You don't see the underside or downside; why do you not grant that it can honestly work the other way?

Somewhere in between the worst possible and the best possible, I'm sure the truth lies.

So you agree that in order to find the truth someone presenting the Conseratives in the most positive possible light we need a counter balance to dobbin's constant negativity?

What is apparent, however, is that Harper will do absolutely anything to get a majority. Do you deny this?

Absolutely I deny it.

There are many, many things Harper won't do to get a majority.

Does he want a minority? Certainly.

Is your language over the top and histrionic? Absolutely!

[no queenslave]

What a joke! You mean, Harper playing these games around the law, is somehow the fault of the opposition? You mean, he seriously honestly wanted to have a debate on all these issues, and maybe, even, have a vote, but seeing opposition so weak, he just couldn't resist the temptation?

The argument is wearing thinner by minute - soon it'll be gone in smoke, completely.

What you don't understand is that a dictatorship government is the law ; you refuse to admit Canada is not a country with a constitution ; or a democratatic government with rules to follow.

THE LEGAL definition of a DEMOCRACY is" That form of government in which the sovereign power RESIDES IN AND IS EXERCISED BY THE WHOLE BODY OF FREE CITIZENS directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarky.

Dictators have no rules or law to follow; so they are not braking any law as you insist.

If you can not understand this why do you think that is??

When did any Canadian pass a

vote to ratify a constitution ; giving the government laws to follow?

You think you have a democracy; and think the government has laws to follow; and when they don't you complain-WHY?

GET over it and understand you are living in dictatorship , pretending to be a democracy.

Go to tax court and see your constitution and your rights do not apply.

Their is no right of innocent ; no matter which political PARTY IS IN POWER

Government has lied to you for so long you think their lies are facts; but they are not.

[myata]

The whole premise of the OP's argument was that the Conservatives handling of a number of issues, Kyoto being one of them, was an example of their sneakiness.

...

He is still using Kyoto as an example of what is wrong with the Conservatives. Changing the line of attack from sneakiness to some tripe about lack of democracy.

Not really, no change at all. I fully keep to my point that without a parliamentary debate and a vote in his favour, he does not have the privilige to ignore, kick, denigrate and such, the current law of the land. This is sneaky policy or lack of democracy, or contempt to it, whatever you like more.

He's fully in his right to bring his view out for the debate and win, then have his way. He didn't and isn't doing it. He's ignoring the law of land simply because it does not fit into his ideology. This is sneaky conservatism, in action. As with death penalty. As with other cases, mentioned in this thread.

Also taking this chance to correct some of your earlier posings, one last time: the OP makes it very clear that 1) I have no problem with conservatism in general; 2) not even with the socially conservative brand of it; but only with this new flavour that does not say what it means and holds in contempt democratic process. Voila, I think it can't be said any clearer now, so next time you have an urge to use the h-word, please address yourself to this post.

Edited December 5, 2007 by myata

[no queenslave]

Not really, no change at all. I fully keep to my point that without a parliamentary debate and a vote in his favour, he does not have the privilige to ignore, kick, denigrate and such, the current law of the land. This is sneaky policy or lack of democracy, or contempt to it, whatever you like more.

He's fully in his right to bring his view out for the debate and win, then have his way. He didn't and isn't doing it. He's ignoring the law of land simply because it does not fit into his ideology. This is sneaky conservatism, in action. As with death penalty. As with other cases, mentioned in this thread.

Also taking this chance to correct some of your earlier posings, one last time: the OP makes it very clear that 1) I have no problem with conservatism in general; 2) not even with the socially conservative brand of it; but only with this new flavour that does not say what it means and holds in contempt democratic process. Voila, I think it can't be said any clearer now, so next time you have an urge to use the h-word, please address yourself to this post.

Not really; their is no law of the land as you dream. What right has parliament to do anything?

It is just a group of people who continue to govern with assumed power; as you keep pointing out they can do whatever they want. If you want politicians to have laws to follow ; you first must ratify a constatucion; have you ever voted and had a majority of people vote in favour of any constitution for the government to obey? NO. Theirfore they have no laws to break; they can do whatever they want; and you can complain all you want.

If you think they are breaking any law why don't you sue the government? All talk and no commitment.

[Michael Bluth]

Not really, no change at all.

This is from your original post in the thread.

The new brand can be most easily identified by it's creative approach to communicating its position on diverse issues. Unlike earlier groups that used to say, and do, more or less what they think, Harpers cons took up the motto "talk as Progressive, act as social (con)".

You admitted the Conservatives have been true to their word on Kyoto.

So yes, there really is a change.

[myata]

You admitted the Conservatives have been true to their word on Kyoto.

So yes, there really is a change.

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.

Edited December 5, 2007 by myata

[Michael Bluth]

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.

I'm the obtuse one?

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

Unlike earlier groups that used to say, and do, more or less what they think, Harpers cons took up the motto "talk as Progressive, act as social (con)".

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

Do you really not see the difference or are you just being "obstinate"?

[no queenslave]

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.

what about your obtuse; it does not change the fact the government has no valid constitution to govern; only a bna act they assumed as their constitution to fool you, and they have sucseded . as you don't understand they can change the rules , or not obey them whenever they want.

What you don't understand their is no law of the land. Go to tax court and report back how your right of innocent works.The indoctrinated mindset you have of government is wrong as to the facts.