Liberals Sit Out Most Votes of Any Party

jbg · April 1, 2008

In this situation there's little point in going for an election, at least everybody understands that.

Does that mean that Chretien was wrong to call snap elections during 1997 and 2000 when the Reform and PCPC had unelectable leaders?

Alta4ever · April 1, 2008

Does that mean that Chretien was wrong to call snap elections during 1997 and 2000 when the Reform and PCPC had unelectable leaders?

Oh no that was ok becuase it was the liberals, but now when the shoe is on the other foot...........

myata · April 1, 2008

Does that mean that Chretien was wrong to call snap elections during 1997 and 2000 when the Reform and PCPC had unelectable leaders?

I dunno, but Harper can't even do that (must be his popularity, soaring).

Alta4ever · April 1, 2008

I dunno, but Harper can't even do that (must be his popularity, soaring).

Harper said he would not ;pull the plug until the end of the mandate, and so far he's lived up to his word. The CPC could fight an election and win a majority right now. Go ahead steffi pull the plug, or are your MPs too scared to go because they are so close to the pention, and don't want to lose their seats until they qualify?

Keepitsimple · April 1, 2008

I have proof that Stronach was offered and given a Cabinet post. Before you say "Emerson", his switch was not necessary to create or maintain Parliamentary confidence in the PM. Stronach's was. Thus, Martin's survival of the May 2005 confidence vote was cemented with a bribe. Remember, he deferred the vote for a few days while the bribe's terms were hammered out.

I don't know what exact proof you have but only a fool would disagree with you. Stronach crossed the floor and took a Cabinet posting as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and also in charge of Democratic Renewal. It soon became clear that she was unqualified for such a posting - after all, she was only starting to get her feet wet as an ordinary MP. Clearly, this was a bribe/incentive. David Emerson - if someone tries to draw a parallel, was a Cabinet Minister under Martin as Minister of Trade. His acceptance of a Cabinet post as Minister of International Trade made a lot of sense and he was extremely qualified for the position.

jbg · April 1, 2008

I dunno, but Harper can't even do that (must be his popularity, soaring).

Because maybe it's against the law (the fixed election law)?

jbg · April 1, 2008

I don't know what exact proof you have but only a fool would disagree with you.

If I recall correctly it was announced and was no secret. As for "proof", isn't it true that "a proof is a proof" in Canada?

Alta4ever · April 1, 2008

If I recall correctly it was announced and was no secret. As for "proof", isn't it true that "a proof is a proof" in Canada?

Hey you forgot to pull out the balls to brag that you had you name monogramed on them.

Who's Doing What? · April 1, 2008

What the hell are they supposed to do?

Everytime a critical vote comes up, Harper makes it a confidence vote, and forces the Libs to either side with him, not vote, or possibly force an election. Bullly tactics. Effective in politics and Poker.

Personally I don't want another election so soon.

Who's Doing What? · April 1, 2008

I don't know what exact proof you have but only a fool would disagree with you. Stronach crossed the floor and took a Cabinet posting as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and also in charge of Democratic Renewal. It soon became clear that she was unqualified for such a posting - after all, she was only starting to get her feet wet as an ordinary MP. Clearly, this was a bribe/incentive. David Emerson - if someone tries to draw a parallel, was a Cabinet Minister under Martin as Minister of Trade. His acceptance of a Cabinet post as Minister of International Trade made a lot of sense and he was extremely qualified for the position.

Biggest problem and what makes it worse imo, is that Emerson had only days before been elected as a Liberal. I view his entire campaign as a complete lie to the people of his constituency. Then you have the hypocracy of the CPC who only hours after coming to power turn around and do the same thing they were ready to hang PM Martin and the Liberals for doing. Enter the era of political accountability and integrity. :rolleyes:

Keepitsimple · April 1, 2008

Biggest problem and what makes it worse imo, is that Emerson had only days before been elected as a Liberal. I view his entire campaign as a complete lie to the people of his constituency. Then you have the hypocracy of the CPC who only hours after coming to power turn around and do the same thing they were ready to hang PM Martin and the Liberals for doing. Enter the era of political accountability and integrity.

Emerson has said it many times.....he's not a politician - he's a businessman who wants to help his country. When he ran as a Liberal, he expected to win. When they lost, he knew that he could not accomplish anything in opposition - except act as a politician........so he was open to speaking with Harper about joining the government. Emerson really seems to have no political stripe and as he has always said, he just wants to contribute to Canada......and he has done a masterful job without photo ops and without any political agenda. He doesn't like politics.....even though he's done a good job, he might not run again.

margrace · April 1, 2008

You know there is a whole lot of BS on this site. Canadians don't trust Harper or the NDP and they dislike Dion. These men are in there for glory and aggrandizement, they don't give a fildlers damn about what ordinary citizens want. Why the Liberal party put Dion in as leader is a riddle to me, there must have been something going on in the back rooms. Do you think it had anything to do with the amount of liberal leaders who have come from Quebec.

Harper is a scarry proposition for most people, he made it plain years ago that he would rather be American than Canadian, he doesn't like anything that aspires to help the ordinary man. His goal is control and money. He is no different than Conrad Black.

jdobbin · April 1, 2008

Emerson has said it many times.....he's not a politician - he's a businessman who wants to help his country. When he ran as a Liberal, he expected to win. When they lost, he knew that he could not accomplish anything in opposition - except act as a politician........so he was open to speaking with Harper about joining the government. Emerson really seems to have no political stripe and as he has always said, he just wants to contribute to Canada......and he has done a masterful job without photo ops and without any political agenda. He doesn't like politics.....even though he's done a good job, he might not run again.

The incident reflected more badly on Harper who made a number of his own people quite angry at the move.

As for Emerson, it made the people in his riding quite upset and cynical. It remains to be seen if he can win running again. One wonders if the Liberals win the election whether he will jump parties again.

myata · April 1, 2008

Harper said he would not ;pull the plug until the end of the mandate, and so far he's lived up to his word.

My, how gentelmenly of him (them). Yet as we all know the bunch won't ever hesitate to shove what they want on anybody, no matter what (ie law or no law). The only logical conclusion that remains after impossibilities are eliminated (i.e Harper's bunch resisting their own nature), is: no, they can't.

The CPC could fight an election and win a majority right now. seats until they qualify?

You're certainly entitled to this opionion. Harper can even see it in his dearest dreams. That in no way makes it anywhere closer to the reality though (for a check, see e.g. the latest polls).

DrGreenthumb · April 1, 2008

What Emerson did was fraud. The people voted for a liberal, not a neo-con fascist. The people of that riding should have formed a lynch mob.

White Doors · April 1, 2008

What Emerson did was fraud. The people voted for a liberal, not a neo-con fascist. The people of that riding should have formed a lynch mob.

A lynch mob and emerson is the fascist?

:lol:

jbg · April 1, 2008

....he made it plain years ago that he would rather be American than Canadian....

Citation? Quote?

jbg · April 1, 2008

A lynch mob and emerson is the fascist?

Typical of what passes for reasoning in some quarters.

Alta4ever · April 1, 2008

Typical of what passes for reasoning in some quarters.

QUOTE(DrGreenthumb @ Apr 1 2008, 10:14 AM)
What Emerson did was fraud. The people voted for a liberal, not a neo-con fascist. The people of that riding should have formed a lynch mob.

The word fascist brought into this kind of arguement means that this person has no other arguement left and has resorted to name calling to advance their point. Ignore on.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Alta4ever

DrGreenthumb · April 1, 2008

The word fascist brought into this kind of arguement means that this person has no other arguement left and has resorted to name calling to advance their point. Ignore on.

I don't think you even know what the word fascist means. I would probably consider you one too. Far right wing ideas, no concern for the plight of your fellow man, advocating authoritarianism of the state. Ignore all you want but the Conservative party is already well on the way to behaving like the fascists I believe they are. Given a majority I'm sure these fascist leanings will only become more obvious.

By definition an uprising of the people against a government figure is basically the opposite of fascism, so White Doors a lynch mob going after a politician who lied and fraudulently represented himself as something he is not would not qualify as fascism. It could be more accurately be described as an uprising or revolution.

I am not saying that Emerson himself is a fascist, but he joined a party with facsist leanings. He got elected by people who wanted a social progressive, then almost immediately after the election joined a social conservative party, which is exactly what the voters did not want. I would say that many in the CPC are fascist, including Harper, Toewes, stockwell day, tony clement and nicholson. Most of the crew that Harper gives most responsibility to are the biggest authoritarians/facsists in the party.

Alta4ever · April 1, 2008

I don't think you even know what the word fascist means. I would probably consider you one too. Far right wing ideas, no concern for the plight of your fellow man, advocating authoritarianism of the state. Ignore all you want but the Conservative party is already well on the way to behaving like the fascists I believe they are. Given a majority I'm sure these fascist leanings will only become more obvious.
By definition an uprising of the people against a government figure is basically the opposite of fascism, so White Doors a lynch mob going after a politician who lied and fraudulently represented himself as something he is not would not qualify as fascism. It could be more accurately be described as an uprising or revolution.

I am not saying that Emerson himself is a fascist, but he joined a party with facsist leanings. He got elected by people who wanted a social progressive, then almost immediately after the election joined a social conservative party, which is exactly what the voters did not want. I would say that many in the CPC are fascist, including Harper, Toewes, stockwell day, tony clement and nicholson. Most of the crew that Harper gives most responsibility to are the biggest authoritarians/facsists in the party.

Fascists!" "Brownshirts!" "Jackbooted stormtroopers!" Such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. But who are the real fascists in our midst? In Liberal Fascism, National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg shows that the original fascists are really on the left -- and that liberals, from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton, have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler and Mussolini.
Replacing manufactured myths with enlightening research, Goldberg begins by showing how the Italian fascism, German Nazism and American Progressivism (forebear of modern liberalism) all drew from the same intellectual foundations the idea that the state can create a kind of social utopia for its citizens. He then traces fascism's history in the U.S. -- from Woodrow Wilson's war socialism and FDR's New Deal to today's liberal push for a greater alliance between big business and government. Finally, Goldberg reveals the striking resemblances between the opinions advanced by Hitler and Mussolini and the current views of the left on such diverse issues as government's role in the economy, campaign finance reform, campus "speech codes," education, environmentalism, gun control, abortion, and euthanasia.

Impeccably researched and persuasively argued, Liberal Fascism will elicit howls of indignation from the liberal establishment -- and rousing cheers from the right.

How fascism, Nazism, Progressivism, and modern liberalism are all alike in principle, in that all believe that government should be allowed to do whatever it likes, so long as it is for "good reasons"

How, before World War II and the Holocaust, fascism was considered a progressive social movement both in the U.S. and Europe -- but was redefined afterwards as "right wing"

How the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term "National Socialism") who loathed the free market, believed in free health care, opposed inherited wealth, spent vast sums on public education, purged Christianity from public policy, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life

How the Nazis declared war on smoking; supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control; and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities -- where campus speech codes were all the rage

Adolph Hitler, Man of the Left: how his views and policies regarding capitalism, class warfare, environmentalism, gun control, euthanasia and even smoking are remarkably close to those of modern liberals

How Woodrow Wilson and the other founding fathers of American liberalism were far crueler jingoists and warmongers than modern conservatives have ever been

How Wilson's crackdown on civil liberties in the name of national security far exceeds anything even attempted by Joe McCarthy, much less George W. Bush

How Mussolini and Hitler both thought -- quite rightly -- that they were doing things along the same lines as FDR

How, in the 1930s, FDR's New Deal was praised for its similarity to Italian Fascism -- "the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery," said an influential member of FDR's team

How, just like modern liberals, Mussolini promised a "Third Way" that "went beyond tired categories of left and right" in order to "get things done"

Mussolini's and Hitler's not-so-secret admirers: how many prominent progressives -- from W.E.B. Dubois in the U.S. to George Bernard Shaw England -- publicly praised German Nazism and Italian Fascism

Liberal fascism and the cult of the state: how progressivism shared with fascism a conviction that, in a truly modern society, the state must take the place of religion

How American Progressives, like Hitler's Nazis, were convinced that the state could, through planning and pressure, create a pure race, a society of new men

How Nazis, fascists and American progressives -- including Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger -- all shared a belief in racial engineering through eugenics, and the alleged "need" for abortion and euthanasia it implied

How it was largely Christian conservatives who stood against the progressive enthusiasm for racist eugenics

The fascist underpinnings of progressive education

The 1960s: fascism takes to the streets -- how the New Left used the means and methods of Hitler's brownshirts and the fascist squadristi to further their agenda

How the Kennedy-Johnson era marked the final evolution off Progressivism into a full-blown religion and a national cult of the state -- with Kennedy its sacrificial "Christ" and LBJ its Pauline architect

The Great Society: LBJ's fascist utopia

How the modern heirs of the fascist tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood

The tempting of conservatism: the fascist tendencies lurking in "compassionate conservatism" and other pseudo-conservative trends

"'It is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion,' Jonah Goldberg writes near the beginning of Liberal Fascism. My first reaction was that he is engaging in partisan hyperbole. That turned out to be wrong. Liberal Fascism is nothing less than a portrait of twentieth-century political history as seen through a new prism. It will affect the way I think about that history -- and about the trajectory of today's politics -- forever after." -- Charles Murray, author of Human Accomplishment and coauthor (with Richard J. Herrnstein) of The Bell Curve

"In the greatest hoax of modern history, Russia's ruling 'socialist workers party,' the Communists, established themselves as the polar opposites of their two socialist clones, the National Socialist German Workers Party (quicknamed 'the Nazis') and Italy's Marxist-inspired Fascisti, by branding both as 'the fascists.' Jonah Goldberg is the first historian to detail the havoc this spin of all spins has played upon Western thought for the past seventy-five years, very much including the present moment. Love it or loathe it, Liberal Fascism is a book of intellectual history you won't be able to put down -- in either sense of the term." -- Tom Wolfe, author of Bonfire of the Vanities and I Am Charlotte Simmons

"Liberal Fascism will enrage many people on the left, but Jonah Goldberg's startling thesis deserves serious attention. Going back to the eugenics movement there has been a strain of elitist moral certainty that allows one group of people to believe they have the right to determine the lives of others. We have replaced the divine right of kings with the divine right of self-righteous groups. Goldberg will lead you to new understanding and force you to think deeply." --Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, author of Winning the Future

"Jonah Goldberg argues that liberals today have doctrinal and emotional roots in twentieth century European fascism. Many people will be shocked just by the thought that long-discredited fascism could mutate into the spirit of another age. It's always exhilarating when someone takes on received opinion, but this is not a work of pamphleteering. Goldberg's insight, supported by a great deal of learning, happens to be right." -- David Pryce-Jones, author of The Strange Death of the Soviet Union

"Jonah Goldberg brilliantly traces the intellectual roots of fascism to their surprising source, showing not only that its motivating ideas derive from the left but that the liberal fascist impulse is alive and well among contemporary progressives-and is even a temptation for compassionate conservatives." -- Ronald Bailey,

The definintion that you use is changing, people are coming to relise where the roots of fascism really lay, even the encarta encylopedia is quoted "Fascist movements usually try to retain some supposedly healthy parts of the nation’s existing political and social life, but they place more emphasis on creating a new society. In this way fascism is directly opposed to conservatism—the idea that it is best to avoid dramatic social and political change. Instead, fascist movements set out to create a new type of total culture in which values, politics, art, social norms, and economic activity are all part of a single organic national community."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568245/Fascism.html

You have your isms mixed up, must be all the pot.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Alta4ever

capricorn · April 1, 2008

Whenever I read a poster who uses the word fascist or fascism to describe a group or individual who doesn't share their ideology, I don't give the comment any weight whatsoever. It's empty, over-used, bland and unconvincing. It truly leaves me unmoved.

The word fascist has become a slur throughout the political spectrum following World War II (WWII), and it has been uncommon for political groups to call themselves fascist. In contemporary political discourse, adherents of some political ideologies tend to associate fascism with their enemies, or define it as the opposite of their own views. In the strict sense of the word, Fascism covers movements before WWII, and later movements are described as Neo-fascist.
Some have argued that the term fascist has become hopelessly vague over the years and that it has become little more than a pejorative epithet. George Orwell wrote in 1944:

...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fascist_as_epithet

guyser · April 1, 2008

Jonah Goldberg, so non-partisan isnt he?

Rightwing conservative, editor of Nat'l Review, his wife is/was policy advisor to John Ashcroft .

His mother involved in the Lewinsky/Clinton scandel....no no, he is quite neutral. (not that I agree w greenthumbs)

DrGreenthumb · April 1, 2008

The definintion that you use is changing, people are coming to relise where the roots of fascism really lay, even the encarta encylopedia is quoted "Fascist movements usually try to retain some supposedly healthy parts of the nation’s existing political and social life, but they place more emphasis on creating a new society. In this way fascism is directly opposed to conservatism—the idea that it is best to avoid dramatic social and political change. Instead, fascist movements set out to create a new type of total culture in which values, politics, art, social norms, and economic activity are all part of a single organic national community."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568245/Fascism.html

You have your isms mixed up, must be all the pot.

you are mixed up, must be the conservatism.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

Some authors reject broad usage of the term or exclude certain parties and regimes. Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals.

If the shoe fits wear it. And the pot is none of your business by the way.

capricorn · April 1, 2008

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

You copies and pasted this from the link I just provided in my previous post. It's right at the top of the link's page.