Ontario Seeks "More Diverse" Prayer

[M.Dancer]

We're supposed to be fighting the enemy, which is liberalism, not me...what gives?

The enemy is intollerance and ignorane. It comes in both political spectrums.

[Canadian Blue]

We're supposed to be fighting the enemy, which is liberalism, not me...what gives?

Probably the fact that you have yet to make a single reasoned or logical argument. As well I don't have a hatred of Liberals or Liberalism, if anything I'd say it's more of a disagreement. But on that note I don't subscribe to the simplistic black and white view taken by some of the world. I have my own issues with state funded multiculturalism however I'm not going to be party to your absurd arguments.

Sorry to give you a dose of reality.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Kitchener]

They more than likely are more left leaning, for the same reason that the military is usually right leaning.

Quite right -- in both cases it has a great deal to do with how we define 'left' and 'right'. Being in favour of public education is inherently considered a "liberal" position. So, yes, it turns out that a great many teachers in the public system are in favour of public education. It says bugger-all about their wider socio-politico-economic leanings, though.

Similarly, favouring the possession and use of a military force is inherently defined as right-ish. Soldiers turn out to be right-ish! Shock, surprise, etc.

It seems more revealing to say that teachers and troops alike tend to vote for whomever they believe will most value the aims of the profession to which they have (quite selflessly, in many cases) devoted themselves.

We could carve this differently with considerable justification, though. The military is a classic "Big Government" project, while public education is one of the most effective ways for capital investors and businesses of all sizes to externalize their training costs. From time to time I gently needle my Canadian Forces siblings when they talk about left v. right issues -- reminding them with a wink that they're direct burdens on Canadian taxpayers, living off the government nickel, with the greatest and most comprehensive publicly-funded safety net of any government employees in the nation.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Kitchener

[Qwerty]

Quite right -- in both cases it has a great deal to do with how we define 'left' and 'right'. Being in favour of public education is inherently considered a "liberal" position. So, yes, it turns out that a great many teachers in the public system are in favour of public education. It says bugger-all about their wider socio-politico-economic leanings, though.

Similarly, favouring the possession and use of a military force is inherently defined as right-ish. Soldiers turn out to be right-ish! Shock, surprise, etc.

It seems more revealing to say that teachers and troops alike tend to vote for whomever they believe will most value the aims of the profession to which they have (quite selflessly, in many cases) devoted themselves.

We could carve this differently with considerable justification, though. The military is a classic "Big Government" project, while public education is one of the most effective ways for capital investors and businesses of all sizes to externalize their training costs. From time to time I gently needle my Canadian Forces siblings when they talk about left v. right issues -- reminding them with a wink that they're direct burdens on Canadian taxpayers, living off the government nickel, with the greatest and most comprehensive publicly-funded safety net of any government employees in the nation.

Cite me a reference where a CPC member is against public education please.

Every sovereign nation on the planet has and needs a military.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Qwerty

[Kitchener]

Cite me a reference where a CPC member is against public education please.

Relax. I didn't say anything about the CPC. I said that favouring public education is typically defined as an inherently liberal attitude -- as it turns out, one that most members of the CPC share to some extent, just as they share pro-attitudes towards single-payer health care, EI, and many forms of social assistance with parties to their left.

In my defense, I said this because it's true.

Every sovereign nation on the planet has and needs a military.

Fair enough. And the NDP's policy doesn't hold that we should have no military; yet they are to the left of the Conservatives.

[AngusThermopyle]

Fair enough. And the NDP's policy doesn't hold that we should have no military; yet they are to the left of the Conservatives.

This is purely my own opinion. I believe that if the NDP ever governed Canada (I know, I know, much hilarity at the thought) they would rape our military in an even more predatory manner than the Liberals did. In fact I believe its conceivable that they would attempt to transform it from a military to some sort of social service agency.

[WIP]

This is purely my own opinion. I believe that if the NDP ever governed Canada (I know, I know, much hilarity at the thought) they would rape our military in an even more predatory manner than the Liberals did. In fact I believe its conceivable that they would attempt to transform it from a military to some sort of social service agency.

Up till Harper came along, many of us who opposed the Liberals, did so partly because of their total neglect of the military. But, I assumed that a refurbished Canadian Armed Forces would be primarily for our national defence, not for the global aspirations of American foreign policy!

[AngusThermopyle]

not for the global aspirations of American foreign policy!

I keep hearing this and frankly it doesn't make much sense. Is the stated contention that NATO and the UN are merely US pawns? If so I do believe that those making such claims are shooting pretty far off target.

In fact, the U.N. and the U.S. are hardly best buddies.

[WIP]

Nato had no reason to exist after the breakup of the Soviet Union! At least as far as Canada and the United States are concerned. Instead of enlisting Russia as an ally, the Bush Administration has tried to peal away former Soviet republics by expanding Nato and for some stupid reason, going along with the Europeans objective of expanding the E.E.C. into Eastern Europe. I can't see why they got involved in the Ukranian elections a few years ago. How does making the Ukraine part of the E.E.C. benefit American interests? It was just one more opportunity to piss off the Russians, along with: oil deals in former Central Asian Republics, the Air War on Serbia and the invasion of Iraq, they put Russia back in the hostile camp. Now that oil has become so expensive, it looks like a cooperative strategy would have made alot more sense!

Edited April 18, 2008 by WIP