The Difference between a Liberal and Conservative

[lukin]

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many

others her age, she considered herself to be a Federal Liberal , and among

other Liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support

more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative ,

a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had

participated in, and an occasional chat with various professors, she felt

that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep

what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes

on

the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed

objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she

indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in

school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let

him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a

very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no

time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have

time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because

she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your 2.0 GPA friend Audrey

doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are

easy

classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so

popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to

all

the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes the

next

day because she's too hung over.'

Her father smiled, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to

deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0.

That

way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and

equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired

back, 'That's a crazy idea. That would not be fair! I've worked really

hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!

Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I

worked my tail off!'

The father replied gently, 'Welcome to the Conservative party.'

(If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between a Liberal

and a Conservative, I'm all ears.)

[Slim MacSquinty]

Here another one:

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he

asks about his bill and the barber replies, 'I cannot accept money from you.

I'm doing Community service this week.' The florist is pleased and leaves

the shop.

When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there is a 'thank

you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the

barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community

service this week.' The cop is happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a 'thank you'

card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he

tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money

from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The professor is very

happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a 'thank you'

card and a dozen different books, such as 'How to Improve Your Business'

and 'Becoming More Successful.'

Then, a MP comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the

barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community

service this week.' The MP is very happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen MPs

lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the

citizens of our country and the members of our Parliament.

Vote carefully this year.

[Kitch]

I don't have a fancy story to express my opinion on the difference... but I'll try an analogy using teachers!

A conservative teacher believes that students ought to behave while a liberal teacher understands that sometimes kids will misbehave. The approach of the conservative teacher is to punish students when they act inappropriately (the teacher being the ultimate judge of what is/isn't inappropriate), while the approach of the liberal teacher is to proactively avoid circumstances that lead to student misbehaviour by creating a classroom culture that is (an honest attempt at being) harmonious.

In other words, the conservative has a strong belief about how the world works and will react to anything that threatens to upset that. The liberal, conversely, knows that the world is full of people... each with their own mind... and so doesn't try to control the world. Rather, they simply try to... create a societal framework that lends itself to a harmonious society. Given the exact same information, reasonable people reach very different conclusions. It seems to me that this is something intolerable to conservatives. If people don't reach the same conclusions then they're obviously unreasonable, unintelligent or ignorant.

A conservative world seems to be so isolated. "I" work hard for "my" money and "I" don't want to share it with people who didn't earn it. Fair enough. But, "you" don't live in this world by yourself. We interact with people for... everything! We're social beings. To put it in selfish terms, "I" benefit from a society that works well and in which everyone is well. So rather than saying conservatives are selfish and liberals are not... which is not true... you can say that each has a different approach to getting what they want out of society.

Let's say you own a house on a nice street. Your next door neighbour, for some reason, does not maintain their house. This (in selfish terms) could decrease the value of your house. So, you have three options if you care to prevent this: 1. Contribute to the maintenance of your neighbour's house (money, labour, etc.). 2. Move. 3. Complain to somebody, maybe the neighbour, until the neighbour conforms to your ways.

2 doesn't seem like it would be a popular option. 1 = liberal, 3 = conservative. Mind you, 1. leads to the potential problem of those who tend to take advantage and 3. leads to potential conflict. I guess liberals and conservatives differ in terms of the poison that they pick!

[whowhere]

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many

others her age, she considered herself to be a Federal Liberal , and among

other Liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support

more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative ,

a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had

participated in, and an occasional chat with various professors, she felt

that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep

what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes

on

the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed

objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she

indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in

school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let

him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a

very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no

time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have

time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because

she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your 2.0 GPA friend Audrey

doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are

easy

classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so

popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to

all

the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes the

next

day because she's too hung over.'

Her father smiled, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to

deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0.

That

way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and

equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired

back, 'That's a crazy idea. That would not be fair! I've worked really

hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!

Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I

worked my tail off!'

The father replied gently, 'Welcome to the Conservative party.'

(If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between a Liberal

and a Conservative, I'm all ears.)

hmm, what it means to be conservative??

Oh, in 1980 the National Debt was 120 Billion. The Mulroney Conservative pushed it up over 500 Billion and left office with a 40 Billion dollar deficit.

Canada is Broke and has no money so the Liberals balances the books and brings Canada's debt down to 400 Billion.

The Harper Conservatives comes into office squanders the surplus and is driving Canada into deficit.

The Conservatives are about tax cuts for the corporations and pandering to employers by making it easy for employer to give away employment opportunities to foreigners on work permits and displacing Native Canadians from their Jobs.

Oh, I speak from first Hand experience. I worked for a multinational corporation. The office I was at brought in a smuck on a work permit and he was made manager over my department and the budget for my department. Because the department wasn't making money he looked to save money by eliminating my job.

I went from making 50000 in full time employment to 20000 in temporary employment. As I try to find full time employment I have found myself competing with foreign workers and immigrants for every job out there. These immigrants and foreign workers have a low standard of living so they will accept less. Corporations are greedy and they will go with whoever costs them the least.

The Conservative have created a job market where the job seeker has no leverage and opportunities to develop evolving skills and get paid for what they do. The conservative have made Canada into a low wage resource economy. The conservatives have made it so corporations are able to bypass Canadian job seekers by claiming they can't find the skills within Canada. After which they are able to begin recruiting abroad to fill their employment openings. Once these recruited workers are here the conservatives have paved the way for them to become permanent residents. With this, they are entitled to vote and take advantage of anything Canada has to offer.

If you want a party who will happily pave the way for multinational companies to boot you out of your employment, take away employment opportunites away from Canadians, and drive the country to bankruptcy the Conservatives is your party.

[Bryan]

The Harper Conservatives comes into office squanders the surplus and is driving Canada into deficit.

Bullshit.

A huge surplus means they were either not paying their bills or they were taking too much of your own money in taxes. In the case of the Liberals, it was both. The Conservatives got left with the Liberal's mess. They had to restore funding that the Liberals cut like the $25 billion for healthcare or the $14 billion in other transfer payments to the provinces. In addition to paying the bills the Liberals left behind, the Conservatives also paid nearly $40 billion off of the national debt (that alone will save us over $2 billion a year in interest), and gave us back a substantial amount of our own money in tax cuts. On top of all that, they are STILL running a surplus. Nearly $10 billion surplus last fiscal year, and already and accumulated $2.9 billion surplus for the first quarter of this fiscal year.

[Visionseeker]

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many

others her age, she considered herself to be a Federal Liberal , and among

other Liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support

more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative ,

a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had

participated in, and an occasional chat with various professors, she felt

that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep

what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes

on

the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed

objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she

indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in

school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let

him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a

very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no

time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have

time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because

she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your 2.0 GPA friend Audrey

doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are

easy

classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so

popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to

all

the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes the

next

day because she's too hung over.'

Her father smiled, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to

deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0.

That

way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and

equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired

back, 'That's a crazy idea. That would not be fair! I've worked really

hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!

Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I

worked my tail off!'

The father replied gently, 'Welcome to the Conservative party.'

(If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between a Liberal

and a Conservative, I'm all ears.)

Oh I'm so sick of seeing this Aesop distortion every time there's an election.

First off, this is a creature of the US political scene that has childishly been edited to adapt it to a Canadian audience. Are right-leaning Canadians so unimaginative that they can’t produce their own trite myths? I suppose that in the wake of Harper’s plagiarizing of the Prime Minister of Australia, we can take solace in the fact that it isn’t only the republicans that they get their directions from.

Second, the story reeks of patriarchy. Why is the young student female? Because the story doesn’t resonate well if the conflict is between a father and son. A son who exhibits rebellion against the world view of his father is one that was coddled and poorly raised. But daughters, well everyone knows how the “weaker sex” gets silly ideas put into their head and it’s Daddy’s duty to let them know how he knows best.

Third, the 4.0 GPA recipient is shown to be anything but smart by so easily falling into her father’s manipulative and incongruent analogy. The aim here is to diminish the value and merits of education because education is the worst enemy of religion – the hostage taker of conservatism.

Fourth, the underlying theme of “Father knows best” isn’t conservatism, it’s aristocracy. The discussion is insular; drawing experience and observation within the same social cast and projecting the result beyond. Liberalism, and even socialism, isn’t about rewarding spoiled lazy people who take their social stratum for granted; it’s about ensuring that social stratum is not a necessary determinant for opportunity.

[Visionseeker]

I don't have a fancy story to express my opinion on the difference... but I'll try an analogy using teachers!

A conservative teacher believes that students ought to behave while a liberal teacher understands that sometimes kids will misbehave. The approach of the conservative teacher is to punish students when they act inappropriately (the teacher being the ultimate judge of what is/isn't inappropriate), while the approach of the liberal teacher is to proactively avoid circumstances that lead to student misbehaviour by creating a classroom culture that is (an honest attempt at being) harmonious.

In other words, the conservative has a strong belief about how the world works and will react to anything that threatens to upset that. The liberal, conversely, knows that the world is full of people... each with their own mind... and so doesn't try to control the world. Rather, they simply try to... create a societal framework that lends itself to a harmonious society. Given the exact same information, reasonable people reach very different conclusions. It seems to me that this is something intolerable to conservatives. If people don't reach the same conclusions then they're obviously unreasonable, unintelligent or ignorant.

A conservative world seems to be so isolated. "I" work hard for "my" money and "I" don't want to share it with people who didn't earn it. Fair enough. But, "you" don't live in this world by yourself. We interact with people for... everything! We're social beings. To put it in selfish terms, "I" benefit from a society that works well and in which everyone is well. So rather than saying conservatives are selfish and liberals are not... which is not true... you can say that each has a different approach to getting what they want out of society.

Let's say you own a house on a nice street. Your next door neighbour, for some reason, does not maintain their house. This (in selfish terms) could decrease the value of your house. So, you have three options if you care to prevent this: 1. Contribute to the maintenance of your neighbour's house (money, labour, etc.). 2. Move. 3. Complain to somebody, maybe the neighbour, until the neighbour conforms to your ways.

2 doesn't seem like it would be a popular option. 1 = liberal, 3 = conservative. Mind you, 1. leads to the potential problem of those who tend to take advantage and 3. leads to potential conflict. I guess liberals and conservatives differ in terms of the poison that they pick!

A very interesting look at the ideological dynamic and the inherent costs to each option. Well done.

[stignasty]

I want to punch each and every one of you in the face.

[White Doors]

I want to punch each and every one of you in the face.

hahaha

[Wild Bill]

I don't have a fancy story to express my opinion on the difference... but I'll try an analogy using teachers!

A conservative teacher believes that students ought to behave while a liberal teacher understands that sometimes kids will misbehave. The approach of the conservative teacher is to punish students when they act inappropriately (the teacher being the ultimate judge of what is/isn't inappropriate), while the approach of the liberal teacher is to proactively avoid circumstances that lead to student misbehaviour by creating a classroom culture that is (an honest attempt at being) harmonious.

In other words, the conservative has a strong belief about how the world works and will react to anything that threatens to upset that. The liberal, conversely, knows that the world is full of people... each with their own mind... and so doesn't try to control the world. Rather, they simply try to... create a societal framework that lends itself to a harmonious society. Given the exact same information, reasonable people reach very different conclusions. It seems to me that this is something intolerable to conservatives. If people don't reach the same conclusions then they're obviously unreasonable, unintelligent or ignorant.

A conservative world seems to be so isolated. "I" work hard for "my" money and "I" don't want to share it with people who didn't earn it. Fair enough. But, "you" don't live in this world by yourself. We interact with people for... everything! We're social beings. To put it in selfish terms, "I" benefit from a society that works well and in which everyone is well. So rather than saying conservatives are selfish and liberals are not... which is not true... you can say that each has a different approach to getting what they want out of society.

Let's say you own a house on a nice street. Your next door neighbour, for some reason, does not maintain their house. This (in selfish terms) could decrease the value of your house. So, you have three options if you care to prevent this: 1. Contribute to the maintenance of your neighbour's house (money, labour, etc.). 2. Move. 3. Complain to somebody, maybe the neighbour, until the neighbour conforms to your ways.

2 doesn't seem like it would be a popular option. 1 = liberal, 3 = conservative. Mind you, 1. leads to the potential problem of those who tend to take advantage and 3. leads to potential conflict. I guess liberals and conservatives differ in terms of the poison that they pick!

Well, wouldn't it be fair to consider the relative success of the Liberal approach in today's classroom? It might be a good idea for you to poke around a bit to get some perspective. From what I hear from the media and some teachers in the family there are some severe problems that weren't there back in the days of stronger discipline.

It might be worth a thread. Certainly, there's no way you are entitled to having your premise accepted as gospel with no challenge.

[lukin]

Oh I'm so sick of seeing this Aesop distortion every time there's an election.

That's because this analogy explains liberalism to those who may not know much about politics.

First off, this is a creature of the US political scene that has childishly been edited to adapt it to a Canadian audience. Are right-leaning Canadians so unimaginative that they can’t produce their own trite myths? I suppose that in the wake of Harper’s plagiarizing of the Prime Minister of Australia, we can take solace in the fact that it isn’t only the republicans that they get their directions from.

Second, the story reeks of patriarchy. Why is the young student female? Because the story doesn’t resonate well if the conflict is between a father and son. A son who exhibits rebellion against the world view of his father is one that was coddled and poorly raised. But daughters, well everyone knows how the “weaker sex” gets silly ideas put into their head and it’s Daddy’s duty to let them know how he knows best.

Third, the 4.0 GPA recipient is shown to be anything but smart by so easily falling into her father’s manipulative and incongruent analogy. The aim here is to diminish the value and merits of education because education is the worst enemy of religion – the hostage taker of conservatism.

Fourth, the underlying theme of “Father knows best” isn’t conservatism, it’s aristocracy. The discussion is insular; drawing experience and observation within the same social cast and projecting the result beyond. Liberalism, and even socialism, isn’t about rewarding spoiled lazy people who take their social stratum for granted; it’s about ensuring that social stratum is not a necessary determinant for opportunity.

Regardless of sex, it shows how a young hard working student goes to university, accepts liberal idealogy from having it forced on her by liberal professors. She doesn't really know the difference. She's just following what she was told...blindly without seeking the truth for herself.You totally missed the point.

It didn't say she became a coinservative, did it? It was explained to her in context that she could understand. Her university grades represent those Canadians who have worked hard to achieve a good living. Her friend represents those Candadians who expect hand outs form the government, via the hard -working. She didn't agree with her father's idea, making her a hypocrite. If she gave up 1 point of her GPA, she is a true liberal. However, she didn't agree with her father's idea, giving her a conservative idealogy. Now she knows what a conservative is, because she obviously hadn't seeked both points of view. She just followed liberalism blindly, believing what she was told, without having it explained to her in a way she could understand.

Edited October 7, 2008 by lukin

[myata]

Oh I'm so sick of seeing this Aesop distortion every time there's an election.

First off, this is a creature of the US political scene that has childishly been edited to adapt it to a Canadian audience. Are right-leaning Canadians so unimaginative that they can’t produce their own trite myths? I suppose that in the wake of Harper’s plagiarizing of the Prime Minister of Australia, we can take solace in the fact that it isn’t only the republicans that they get their directions from.

I hate to generalize, but what if they were? Howard speech, Harris speech, Bush's boots. At some point one starts to wonder...

[Argus]

hmm, what it means to be conservative??

Oh, in 1980 the National Debt was 120 Billion. The Mulroney Conservative pushed it up over 500 Billion and left office with a 40 Billion dollar deficit.

I will just repost this again:

Given interest rates in the mid to high teens over a number of years any debt will about double if you can't pay it off and have high interest rates

The total debt when Trudeau took power in 1967 was about 12 billion (0.3% of GDP). The deficit was at a measly 187 million. Unemployment was very low, as was inflation.

When Mulroney took over from him in 1985 the debt was up to about 200 billion (8% of GDP) and the yearly deficit had passed 38 billion. Unemployment and interest rates were both into double digits. Debt service costs represtented 22% of the budget. With the bank rate as high as it was the debt jumped to 360 billion within five years because in order to pay the previous year's debt servicing charges the government had to run a deficit - which meant borrowing more money - which meant the following year's debt charge would be still higher During Mulroney's reign his government spent $230 billion servicing the debt, all of it borrowed money. Nevertheless, the overall debt dropped from 8% of GDP to 5.8% of GDP

Further, comparing spending is telling:

The yearly budget during Trudeau's time in office doubled between 1967 and 1970 and doubled again between 1970 and 1975. The inflation rate during the first 5 year period averaged 4%, and during the second 5 year period 5%. The national debt, during the entire period of his rule, increased by 1200%

Mulroney's first year in office was 1985. The budget that year was $112,362 billion dollars. Five years later in 1990, the budget was up to $151,590. The average inflation rate during that five year period was 4%, which means the budget rose only slightly in real terms during that time, most of which probably went to pay growing debt servicing costs. By 1992, the last full year of Mulroney's reign, the budget had increased by less than the rate of inflation.

By the time Chretien took over in 1993 unemployment and interest rates were both down, and the debt was at 466 billion. Chretien raised that to 600 billion. He did cut back on the deficit, but not for the first two years. It wasn't until continuing improvement in the economy that he was able to make any substantial reduction in the deficit (in 1996).

The Harper Conservatives comes into office squanders the surplus and is driving Canada into deficit.

We're not in deficit, and I still don't understand where all you nutty lefties got the idea it was better for governmetn to collect more in taxes than it needed to spend. Not just more but LOTS more. Lots and LOTS more. Because, like, government can spend our money better than we can and maybe they might find a use for it! Here's an idea. When it comes time to pay your taxes next year add a 10% bonus - just in case they have a use for it.

The Conservatives are about tax cuts for the corporations and pandering to employers by making it easy for employer to give away employment opportunities to foreigners on work permits and displacing Native Canadians from their Jobs.

Most of the world has come to realize that cutting corporate taxes stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Look over at Europe and all those left wing governments there. They're way ahead of us on this score. As far as immigration goes - the Liberals and NDP have been bringing in millions for the last twenty years, and their only complaint is they want more. The conservatives used to be opposed to that sort of thing, but now they've gone along with the others, at least publicly. So if bringing over people to do your work doesn't sit well with you - good luck getting better from the Libs or NDP. They invented that game. Go complain to them and the'll call you a racist and throw you out the door.

[Argus]

I don't have a fancy story to express my opinion on the difference... but I'll try an analogy using teachers!

A conservative teacher believes that students ought to behave while a liberal teacher understands that sometimes kids will misbehave. The approach of the conservative teacher is to punish students when they act inappropriately (the teacher being the ultimate judge of what is/isn't inappropriate), while the approach of the liberal teacher is to proactively avoid circumstances that lead to student misbehaviour by creating a classroom culture that is (an honest attempt at being) harmonious.

Which works every time, right? I mean, you'll never get students who throw things or punch out their teacher or do anything else that sappy liberal ideolical mush can't handle, right?

Funny, btw, how under that stern conservative approach schools used to be safe and orderly. Now in many city schools they have security guards and cops trying to maintain order and doing a poor job of it.

[Pliny]

In other words, the conservative has a strong belief about how the world works and will react to anything that threatens to upset that. The liberal, conversely, knows that the world is full of people... each with their own mind... and so doesn't try to control the world. Rather, they simply try to... create a societal framework that lends itself to a harmonious society.

They(Liberals) simply try to create a harmonious society. The problem is the Liberal believes that he is a member of the majority which overrides the beliefs of the individual. The Liberal does not particularly act on his own and will deny any self interest, whatsoever.

[Moonbox]

hmm, what it means to be conservative??

Oh, in 1980 the National Debt was 120 Billion. The Mulroney Conservative pushed it up over 500 Billion and left office with a 40 Billion dollar deficit.

Canada is Broke and has no money so the Liberals balances the books and brings Canada's debt down to 400 Billion.

The Harper Conservatives comes into office squanders the surplus and is driving Canada into deficit.

If you actually look at ALL of the numbers, as in the ones that actually MATTER, like inflation rates, debt relative to GDP and interest rates paid for debt accumulated already, spending under Trudeau did WAY more to hurt Canada than under Mulroney. Mulroney was a bad PM but Trudeau was 5 times worse.

The Conservatives are about tax cuts for the corporations and pandering to employers by making it easy for employer to give away employment opportunities to foreigners on work permits and displacing Native Canadians from their Jobs.

You bring this argument up all the time whowhere but the fact of the matter is Conservative immigration policy is more selective than Liberal policy ever was and they are improving it immensely. You seem to have a problem with the fact the conservatives are ensuring that skilled and productive immigrants come to the country instead of how the Liberals let ANYONE in on a first come first serve basis.

Oh, I speak from first Hand experience. I worked for a multinational corporation. The office I was at brought in a smuck on a work permit and he was made manager over my department and the budget for my department. Because the department wasn't making money he looked to save money by eliminating my job.

Not to sound insensitive but the fact that your department was dead weight on the corporation and needed trimming isn't really the fault of Conservative Policy. The conservatives really made no changes to immigration policy as far as I know of prior to the last 3-4 months. Even if you lost your job in that period, the policies hadn't even been implemented yet really.

You're complaining that the Conservatives are making it so that skilled immigrants get into the country first ahead of unskilled non-english speaking immigrants. Naturally they will be competing for skilled work but to argue against these policies is to suggest that Canada is better off with unskilled immigrants suitable only for minimum wage work so they can mooch off our social system.

I went from making 50000 in full time employment to 20000 in temporary employment. As I try to find full time employment I have found myself competing with foreign workers and immigrants for every job out there. These immigrants and foreign workers have a low standard of living so they will accept less. Corporations are greedy and they will go with whoever costs them the least.

Your argument isn't really making sense. You can't find a job because immigrants have a low standard of living and that's why you're still on temporary employment making $20,000? The immigrants, with their lowly standard of living, are doing your $50,000 job and doing it for less than $20,000? I would love to know what your lowly immigrant manager's department was and what your job was.

I think there is a lot of 'poor me' and blame game being played here. Generally speaking, native Canadians have a VASTLY better time finding jobs than immigrants. To say that ALL of the jobs you could apply for are being filled by foreigners on work permits is juvenile. It's strange that it's never occurred to you that there MIGHT be other reasons other than mythical conservative policy why certain specific people lost and then can't find jobs.

[Kitch]

Well, wouldn't it be fair to consider the relative success of the Liberal approach in today's classroom? It might be a good idea for you to poke around a bit to get some perspective. From what I hear from the media and some teachers in the family there are some severe problems that weren't there back in the days of stronger discipline.

It might be worth a thread. Certainly, there's no way you are entitled to having your premise accepted as gospel with no challenge.

Hahaha. No, definitely not. You are absolutely entitled to challenge my OPINION, and thank you for doing it. You brought up a very important and interesting point.

Well, as a teacher myself, I do have insight into this topic. First, please do not use the media as a serious source of information regarding how a classroom looks/works. It's very misleading in a number of ways but the most troubling is that it views the 'teacher' as being a constant. We're people... lots of us are liberal minded and lots conservative. We approach the class from very different perspectives and thus in terms of classroom management, we have very different ways of dealing with misbehaviour.

I won't deny that students today are a lot more bold and can be more disrespectful than I remember from my days as a student. There are too many factors contributing to this, I think, to simply blame sappy liberal ideology (I'll try to list the ones that I BELIEVE are important).

First, I don't believe that parents spend enough time with their children these days. People have to work late/multiple jobs and when they are home are probably too tired to enjoy some time with their kid(s). And you know what? I didn't really believe that this was a contributing factor but after actually seeing the difference in the attitude of kids that come from families that spend a lot of time together and those that don't... the distinction is clear.

Parents, particularly in Ontario, have had a shift in attitude toward teachers. Before, we were the 'experts' and were trusted to do our 'job'. However, parents are more likely to believe that their kids are infallible today and that if there is a problem with a student that it's the teacher's fault. That very well may be the case, but it's not fair that SOME parents have this general attitude, and it doesn't serve their kids any good to allow them to grow up believing that they are 1. always right and 2. that they will always have some one coming to save the day when there is trouble.

Principals, unless they're exceptional, are ineffective today (it seems). Since teachers went on strike in the 90s, the Ontario government (I think it was them) made it so that principals are no longer members of the same union as teachers. Now in schools, disciplinary action is not a contiguous process. Teachers, as they should be, are expected to handle all problems on their own... to a point. We have a responsibility to the WHOLE class, so if one student continues to misbehave and is a distraction to everyone else, we are encouraged to seek the help of administration. However, many, many, many times these students are slapped on the wrist and sent back to class. The reason? Principals don't want heat from parents. Parents, in recent years, have brought numerous empty lawsuits against schools which cost school boards a LOT of money... and I mean a LOT. Because principals are no longer protected by our union, they do what they can to 'keep up appearances' at their schools, so as to not bring attention from school board brass. In the end, we have principals who are unable to/too scared to discipline students and this trickles down into a decrease in credibility for teachers, leading to even further lack of respect by students.

Liberal approaches are not to blame... entirely. Some teachers simply cannot manage a classroom without being harsh disciplinarians. THESE teachers are often the ones who get the worst reactions out of students. I've seen it happen. Teachers try to strongly discipline the kids and the kids 1. know that the teacher can't REALLY do anything of any real consequence and 2. think it's fun/funny to get into yelling matches with students. What are we going to do? Allow corporal punishment?

On the other hand, teachers who KNOW that students will misbehave at times are less likely to have these sorts of conflicts. They prevent them in a number of ways... they don't pretend to be the ultimate authority, they treat the kids like human beings (and it may be surprising, but that respect is almost always reciprocated), they 'know' their students and thus avoid situations with certain kids that lead to problems... however that may be done.

As I said above, a liberal teacher understands that the entire class will benefit if everyone is well and if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed... which DOESN'T necessarily mean equal treatment. Whereas the conservative teacher is the ultimate authority and tries to police students into order.

[Kitch]

Which works every time, right? I mean, you'll never get students who throw things or punch out their teacher or do anything else that sappy liberal ideolical mush can't handle, right?

Funny, btw, how under that stern conservative approach schools used to be safe and orderly. Now in many city schools they have security guards and cops trying to maintain order and doing a poor job of it.

Funny how your comparison of liberal and conservative approaches to EDUCATION is about as legitimate as claiming that the Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967 because the Liberal party was in power for the majority of the time.

Funny how you also seem to have a sensationalist view of school security issues. Walk through some schools instead of flipping through them on your TV and trusting the media who are selling viewers.

Read my last post to see why that's true.

[PoliticalCitizen]

They(Liberals) simply try to create a harmonious society. The problem is the Liberal believes that he is a member of the majority which overrides the beliefs of the individual. The Liberal does not particularly act on his own and will deny any self interest, whatsoever.

The Liberal Party has shaped and defined Canada into making it what it is today.

It's far from perfect but it's even further from the worst.

By comparing our country to the US you can see the benefits of our socialist - leaning society.

[Kitch]

They(Liberals) simply try to create a harmonious society. The problem is the Liberal believes that he is a member of the majority which overrides the beliefs of the individual. The Liberal does not particularly act on his own and will deny any self interest, whatsoever.

I won't deny that you make a very good point. I think it's an unfair generalization though (As, perhaps, some of my own might be). Just as there are degrees of conservativism, there are degrees of liberalism. Generally (if I can do so fairly), liberals at least attempt to take into consideration the views of each individual but understand that since we're all so different, there will be some give and take on behalf of every individual. The less than selfless liberal might decide that other, less representative individuals have to give more than they take. On the other hand, a conservative is, in my opinion, all take and no give (obvious generalization).

I believe that the liberal doesn't necessarily believe that they are part of the majority... some might believe that they know what's best for the majority though. This almost makes a contradiction with regard to what I said about conservatives, but there is a distinction, although not clear and it will be disputed. Conservatives don't concern themselves with the majority. They want what's best for themselves and assume that what is best for themselves is also best for everyone else. The liberal wants what's best for society because, as I tried to explain, they understand that if society is well, hopefully we're all well. The problem is that sometimes there are some flawed ideas about what is best for society. I guess not all people have the capacity to understand that people are different and have different needs/desires.

This is where there is another problem though... in Canada in particular. Would you disagree that people in different provinces have different needs/desires? Alberta seems to be vastly different from Nova Scotia. How can we govern these two regions under the same umbrella? I don't believe that we can do so effectively. Thus, while conservatives would (and do) try to tell people how to live, liberals try to appease everyone and that's just not possible with such diversity.

[M.Dancer]

By comparing our country to the US you can see the benefits of our socialist - leaning society.

Like higher unemployment? Or perhaps spending less per capita on education? Or maybe just simply having less money per person to spend than our southern neighbours.

Yes the benefits of socialism...

[segnosaur]

The Liberal Party has shaped and defined Canada into making it what it is today.

It's far from perfect but it's even further from the worst.

By comparing our country to the US you can see the benefits of our socialist - leaning society.

Lets see... The U.S. has:

- A per capita GDP that is approximately $6000 per year more

- An unemployment rate that is approximately 1% lower than that in Canada

- While they do have a higher murder rate, overall their rate of crime is lower than that in Canada

Granted I do not think the U.S. is perfect (nor is any country), but the fact is Canada falls short of the U.S. in many areas.

I could also point out that Canada is a country that probably has a much larger resource-base than the U.S. (including oil, mineral resources, lumber, etc.) Given all the advantages that Canada has, its likely even a totally incompetent government would show at least some success.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ca.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/us.html

[Kitch]

Do people REALLY think that the difference between liberals and conservatives is best reflected in the political parties that go by those names? Or even by past governments? Wow.

[Topaz]

Since Harper became PM and he seems to want to change some of the rules then why didn't start with the seating government has to open the books and show their expenses, their surplus if any and exact how much this war is costing and get everything out in the open so we can judge how they are handling our tax dollars. The difference between the Libs and the Cons is a good question and I wish Harper would explain what the difference is between the progressive conservatives and the conservatives. I'm sure the conservatives must have some of the alliances views or how else would the former members give up their alliance views to me conservatives.

[M.Dancer]

Since Harper became PM and he seems to want to change some of the rules then why didn't start with the seating government has to open the books and show their expenses, their surplus if any and exact how much this war is costing and get everything out in the open so we can judge how they are handling our tax dollars.

English or french please