Support for Tories up amid House crisis,

[August1991]

We can see this happening when Harper is referring to the missing flags in the signing of the coalition.

But the flags were missing.

This is what the pro-coalition people don't understand - and what ordinary Canadians do understand.

Harper was right to say that there were no flags in evidence. Depending on the moment, there were two Canadian flags off to the side or a bank of provincial flags.

This is not how the Liberal Party normally does things. Usually, the Liberals have zillions of red Canadian flags or one huge one. Take a look at any signing ceremony of Trudeau or Chretien.

Of course, if the Liberals had done that this time, Duceppe would not have shown up. It is quite obvious that this coalition is not a celebration of Canada and it is one of the low points in the history of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Edited December 6, 2008 by August1991

[scribblet]

Let me start by saying that I'm new to this forum, but by know means new to prognosticating on all things political. I would be greatful if you could please explain how 37% constitutes almost a majority? I would also like to know if anybody else here is of the same mind as I, when I say that perhaps the conservatives pander to the uneducated, ignorant, masses when using fear mongering in order to push through 'reform' style legislation? Is it not a fact that the majority of the seats held by Harper's conservatives are rural seats? Do we as a country want these ridings cramming their extremist religious ideology down our throats? Furthermore is it not fact that this proroging tactic is not dis-similar to tactics emplyed by fascist regimes throughout history?

Wow, no who's part of the ignorant masses !!!

Which riding are going to cram "their extremist religious ideology down our throat", and what has happened so far that suggests this is happening. The rest of it just isn't worth any time bothering with.

[kimmy]

one of the low points in the history of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Which seems to be a recurring theme when Mr Dion is involved.

-k

[ToadBrother]

Wow, no who's part of the ignorant masses !!!

Which riding are going to cram "their extremist religious ideology down our throat", and what has happened so far that suggests this is happening. The rest of it just isn't worth any time bothering with.

My Conservative MP regularly makes these noises about gay rights and abortion. He had a noticeably zipped lip in the last election, as I understand it, a number of the more vocal extreme right social conservatives did. They were clearly under orders from party HQ to not embarrass Harper when he was trying to look cuddwy and kewt.

Part of me is glad that the Conservatives are leaning on some of these nuts (and to be fair, there are a few guys of a similar vein in the Liberal and NDP parties as well, mainly because there's not a one-to-one mapping between social and fiscal right-winger or left-winger in all cases). At the same time, it tells you the level of control that Harper wields over his MPs and candidates. How am I, a voter, supposed to judge a potential or incumbent representative if he or she is basically being gagged, and the only place they're free to be themselves is in the secret confines of a caucus meeting?

I know for a fact from previous statements during his time as an Alliance MP (when being a gay-basher, Indian-hater or feminist-hater was not only tolerated, but seemed to be treated as perfectly acceptable by the higher-ups in the party) that my MP is a bigot, and that most of the riding association (who are for the most part, surprise surprise, in their 70s and 80s) pretty much share his views.

I'm by nature a fiscal conservative. I am not a social conservative, and yet at the moment I find myself more drawn to the Liberals in this regard (let's face it, if Preston Manning had one great victory in his career as a federal politician it was forcing the Liberals towards fiscal conservatism). I don't like that situation, which is why I'm hoping that eventually someone like Mackay or Lord finally gains the reign. But judging by the responses from the Alberta posters out here, it's clear they don't want the Progressives in the party to have control.

Edited December 6, 2008 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

This bun fight reminds me up of the uproar over David Emerson when he crossed the floor. In our system we elect people to represent the ridings - we do not vote for parties. This meant there was absolutely nothing wrong with Emerson crossing the floor the day after the election yet we heard a lot of Liberals screaming about how democracy was denied.

This has been a classic complaint of the party losing the member since the party system solidified in Great Britain. Churchill crossed the floor, and ended up being Prime Minister not once but twice, so it's not like the act itself is necessarily bad. All this talk of banning it really had me hot under the collar. There are, in my opinion, legitimate reasons why an MP might cross the floor.

[Canadian Blue]

VMG, everything you said simply showcased that we have a Parliamentary Democracy and not Fascist government.

Once again bravo, especially when you state the the media is somehow "mis-informing" people, which is idiotic. We don't require another version of Pravda to talk about how the coalition is perfect angels while the CPC are evil fascists waiting to destroy this country one baby at a time.

[Canadian Blue]

I know for a fact from previous statements during his time as an Alliance MP (when being a gay-basher, Indian-hater or feminist-hater was not only tolerated, but seemed to be treated as perfectly acceptable by the higher-ups in the party) that my MP is a bigot, and that most of the riding association (who are for the most part, surprise surprise, in their 70s and 80s) pretty much share his views.

Of course, any person who questions abortion, the reserve system, or for that matter some of the more absurd man haters, have to be bigoted. What we need is a population which in 100% agreement on the status of Indians and blindly accepts that the current system is perfect, and people who never question abortion [Nat Hentoff being the biggest bigot of them all] and those who question some of the more absurd feminist arguments that all men are naturally rapists.

[Canadian Blue]

Does anyone else find it funny that the left always preaches tolerance and understanding, yet they have absolutely no tolerance for people who have a different point of view from them. It's like they simply preach diversity over arbitrary matters, and then go on to argue that diversity of opinion is an evil which must be suffocated in society.

[BC_chick]

Strawman + false association = flawed conclusion

Works like this:

1) Fabricate or reinforce held notions from the US to add credibility with a partisan audience

2) Declare that the US "general population" has been so victimized

...and the payoff

3) Associate this idea with the domestic political target

Or this.....

Does anyone else find it funny that the left always preaches tolerance and understanding, yet they have absolutely no tolerance for people who have a different point of view from them. It's like they simply preach diversity over arbitrary matters, and then go on to argue that diversity of opinion is an evil which must be suffocated in society.

Edited December 6, 2008 by BC_chick

[Canadian Blue]

No, that's the general sentiment coming from the left wing posters on here. It's the same meme that they were going off of in 2004 and 2006, which was basically that if the CPC got close to power all women would be left enslaved in the kitchen with no rights at all.

The poster can't argue how the Canadian Alliance were anti-feminists and "anti-Indian." You can't really backup the argument, all you have to do is yell racist or bigot in the hopes it riles people up. That's the same reason why you and the other left wing posters here can't come up with any half decent arguments in favour of your positions.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

But judging by the responses from the Alberta posters out here, it's clear they don't want the Progressives in the party to have control.

I can't imagine why, out here in the Taliban controlled province of Alberta where men enslave women we tend to be more conservative. I really don't mind it because that means I have more independence than I would in the more nanny state provinces like Ontario.

[ToadBrother]

No, that's the general sentiment coming from the left wing posters on here. It's the same meme that they were going off of in 2004 and 2006, which was basically that if the CPC got close to power all women would be left enslaved in the kitchen with no rights at all.

The poster can't argue how the Canadian Alliance were anti-feminists and "anti-Indian." You can't really backup the argument, all you have to do is yell racist or bigot in the hopes it riles people up. That's the same reason why you and the other left wing posters here can't come up with any half decent arguments in favour of your positions.

The Alliance was run by a young-Earth Creationist who wore his religion on his sleeve. My own MP made, before Harper muzzled him, many comments about abortion and about gay rights. Yes, I'm sure in lots of ridings, they had enlightened individuals who didn't want to push society back to the 1950s, to the good ol' days when women did what they were told, where no one had to worry about Native rights and economic woes, and where queers were safely in the closet. What Harper did was to basically commit to the PC wing of the newly united party that the worst nuts would be silenced, and suddenly my MP who, as I recall, first won on the Reform ticket, suddenly stopped talking about abortion and gays.

The possibilities I see for my MP are thus:

1. He never really held those views, but thought it would give him an edge with many voters.

2. He did hold those views, and knew that many potential voters agreed.

3. The Ghosts of Bigotry Past, Present and Future visited him one night and showed him the evils of his way, and now he's committed to equality for all Canadians.

4. The Conservative Party leadership told him in no uncertain terms that he'd better keep his mouth shut, and keep his feelings on these issues to himself.

Now tell me, what do you suppose, what is the most likely explanation?

[ToadBrother]

Does anyone else find it funny that the left always preaches tolerance and understanding, yet they have absolutely no tolerance for people who have a different point of view from them. It's like they simply preach diversity over arbitrary matters, and then go on to argue that diversity of opinion is an evil which must be suffocated in society.

When I've got my MP telling me in one of his regular letters to his constitutents that allowing gay civil marriage was a violation of *his* religious rights, yeah, I'd say I wasn't terribly tolerant and supportive. I sure the hell ain't any Left-winger, but I'm not the kind of conservative who believes that my MP has any business telling anybody what they can or cannot do with a consenting adult, and that includes enjoying the *civil* benefits of a legal marriage.

I mean, if you're neighbor regularly talked about how Jews eat babies or Catholics enjoy sex with small children or some other rubbish, that it's a flaw on your part that you're wouldn't be tolerant and understanding?

[BC_chick]

The poster can't argue how the Canadian Alliance were anti-feminists and "anti-Indian." You can't really backup the argument, all you have to do is yell racist or bigot in the hopes it riles people up. That's the same reason why you and the other left wing posters here can't come up with any half decent arguments in favour of your positions.

I was talking about you taking one person's opinion and attributing it as 'the left'....

[Canadian Blue]

The Alliance was run by a young-Earth Creationist who wore his religion on his sleeve. My own MP made, before Harper muzzled him, many comments about abortion and about gay rights. Yes, I'm sure in lots of ridings, they had enlightened individuals who didn't want to push society back to the 1950s, to the good ol' days when women did what they were told, where no one had to worry about Native rights and economic woes, and where queers were safely in the closet.

I never knew MP's made comments about abortion and gay rights, it comes as a complete shock to me.

When I've got my MP telling me in one of his regular letters to his constitutents that allowing gay civil marriage was a violation of *his* religious rights, yeah, I'd say I wasn't terribly tolerant and supportive.

Gay marriage or civil unions? I believe one of the fears was that under our enlightened politically correct rulers some religious rights could be sued by HRC's. After all even Macleans magazine was close to being labelled a hate magazine.

I sure the hell ain't any Left-winger, but I'm not the kind of conservative who believes that my MP has any business telling anybody what they can or cannot do with a consenting adult, and that includes enjoying the *civil* benefits of a legal marriage.

Yes, and as I recall their were no MP's in the Liberal caucus who were opposed to gay marriage. But it's odd because you argue that you want the progressives to take over the Conservative Party, which really would make them left wing as progressivism is a left wing ideology, yet you argue that any criticism of the current policies regarding aboriginal affairs is somehow anti-Native.

Now tell me, what do you suppose, what is the most likely explanation?

I'd go with option 6, which is that you construe any support for tradition, or for that matter any criticism or differing of opinions on issues such as abortion to be comparable to bigotry. Despite the fact that one can be opposed to abortion yet not hold a religious faith or any real bigotry.

I mean, if you're neighbor regularly talked about how Jews eat babies or Catholics enjoy sex with small children or some other rubbish, that it's a flaw on your part that you're wouldn't be tolerant and understanding?

No, but unlike you I don't automatically assume that any person who believes marriage is between one man or one woman, or that someone who is opposed to abortion is automatically an evil bigot. All you really seem to believe is that you automatically win any debate by screaming "bigot" as loud as you can. As far as I can tell the scoundrel with no substance on the issue is usually the first to yell bigotry.

By the way, I believe both Peter Mackay and Bernard Lord have taken views that could be seen as "socially conservative" in nature. However I don't think either men are bigots.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[M.Dancer]

When I've got my MP telling me in one of his regular letters to his constitutents that allowing gay civil marriage was a violation of *his* religious rights, yeah, I'd say I wasn't terribly tolerant and supportive.

If it's in his letter it's probably on his website....please link.

[M.Dancer]

As far as I could tell, that is technically not an insult. Although clarification is required. Not everyone with a full-time job has the time to follow politics. It is even safe to assume a majority are "uneducated and ignorant" to a great deal of facts readily available to them. A widely used political tool in the US is controlling the different headlines in newspapers to create misinformation and mislead the general population. We can see this happening when Harper is referring to the missing flags in the signing of the coalition.

To say this in incorrect would be an understatement. To describe it as tinfoil stupidity would be an understatement.

[Canadian Blue]

I work a fulltime job, yet I've never been so busy that I couldn't take half an hour out of the day to read a newspaper.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I work a fulltime job, yet I've never been so busy that I couldn't take half an hour out of the day to read a newspaper.

The Calgary Sun makes for some fine readin', don't it...?

[speaker]

Does the Calgary Sun ever have any biased reporting/editorials on behalf of the Right wing agenda? ahh say it ain't so. You don't suppose the New Conservatives have an ally that would be trying to help Canadians come to the "right" opinions?

Are there other examples out there? Edmonton Sun? Vancouver Sun or Province? National Post? Globe and Mail? CTV? any others?

[White Doors]

The Calgary Sun makes for some fine readin', don't it...?

aww... Go back to your Star. It's ok, if you close your eyes hard enough, it will all go away..

there there..